Sorry, Phil, but this is what "critical pedagogy" and "identity politics" creates - the perpetually pissed off class of people who know and understand essentially nothing, but believe the world is out to keep them down.
"creates - the perpetually pissed off class of people who know and understand essentially nothing."
Oh, the delicious irony. This seems to be an accurate characertization of most conservatives inclduing many here. It's the fault of the liberal media and CPists (formerly the liberal indoctrination machine of all educators every where). This example isn't any more silly than people who classify themselves as "Real Americans" from "Real America" who whine about Christmas being under assault every year. Everyone plays the victim card these days, Kevin, including you. Obama is coming to git your guns, remember? Even though the opposite has happened.
And, as always, more hair, golf balls, and old tires (see: eternally obtuse) in regards to the issue of race. Speaking of which, I find if very interesting that we haven't heard about benign neglect much lately while not hearing anything at all about the oil spill.
Oh, and I forgot to congratulate you...all of you, actually. My apologies. You have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate. All issues of race are now in one category and 800 pound derision for anyone who thinks otherwise.
You have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate.
So... are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist? Other than that possibility, I can't seem to find any possible connection between what you're saying and the subject at hand at all.
Of course, the fact that the Democrat party has created an environment for nearly 50 years where it was not only OK to be prejudiced and discriminate, but required by Federal law,never got the complaints (or even outright venom) that daring to call something as stupid as this the stupidity that it is does. What a surprise.
Awww... Disappointed I'm not writing another Überpost directed at you? Jealosy doesn't suit you, Markadelphia! ;)
You're right. I haven't said a WORD about how badly Obama is handling the oil spill! Shame on me! I mean it's like I think the Feds should sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the people actually knowledgeable and responsible FIX THE DAMNED THING without having their elbows jogged by .gov lawyers lined up as far as the eye can see.
The lawyers can come later. There's apparently plenty of blame to spread around.
Yeah! What's wrong with you Kevin?!? You're spending all this time writing about the right to own guns instead of writing about other stuff! Did you think you were writing a gun blog or something?!? ;)
I mean it's like I think the Feds should sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the people actually knowledgeable and responsible FIX THE DAMNED THING without having their elbows jogged
Who exactly would that be, Kevin? Or anyone?
GOF, your question and ensuing silliness demonstrates your complete deafness of tone. It's impossible to call anyone a racist any more. There are none. Poof! They are all gone and all that is left is a bunch of race mongers who play the victim card. Actually, this example of Kevin's reminds me a lot of how they used to frame the UFO issue. Every time you talk about UFOs, show a picture of Elvis and people who think he is alive. Every time some people are silly and offended, that means it's all liberals, CP and identity politics everywhere that are all wrong and silly.
Oh, and GOF? Three states have outlawed AA with legislation pending in many others. So I would think you would be happy...or is this going to be another "Obama's going to take our guns" meme when he's actually not.
Yet you didn't answer the question. Whether or not our response to these actions is appropriate turns on the answer to that question. Your "conclusions" seem to be based on an assumption that referring to an astronomical body known as a "black hole" in a context which is appropriate for such objects is somehow racist. Should we just go with the apparent implication that you think it is racist to ever refer to a "black hole"? Or would you prefer to give us your answer?
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
Yet you, and many others, have called many people racist on a regular basis.
Just recently there was claims that the "Tea Party" were screaming racist epithets. But for all the audio and video, there was no proof.
But those accusations, which were covered prominently, were never retracted.
You're familiar with that situation.
The humor here is that because of idiocy like this - the sort you promote, espouse, and defend - the reflective racist label is losing it's sting. It wasn't true most of the time before, but the automatic distancing from possibly being a racist, even remotely was useful for those who didn't want to argue on merits, or on logic, but to use the mantle of victimhood for their politics.
Remember, when Kevin talked about racism, and how it was slung regardless of the fact, the very first thing you did - was call us racists.
You're just angry your rhetorical device is being lost, not that there might actually -be- no racists.
The former dismays you far more than the possibility of the latter.
GOF, your question and ensuing silliness demonstrates your complete deafness of tone.
That sounds an awful lot like "racism is whatever I say it is." As usual, you say something that doesn't have any specific meaning, waiting for us to agree or disagree before you define it to suit yourself.
Three states have outlawed AA with legislation pending in many others. So I would think you would be happy...
And I would be, if I thought it would actually get uniformly enforced, but I know better. The quite consistent history of government throughout my lifetime tells me that conservative whites will have to go to court to defend the hiring of everyone liberals disagree with, but businesses that support liberal causes will get a pass, just as they always have. Especially given that the government is currently run by liberals, who openly fight against enforcing laws as written.
I'm sure you consider that ridiculous and paranoid, but that's hardly surprising. After all, you're the one who thinks ACORN employees giving advice on video on child prostitution is a "smear campaign".
And yes, various states are finally dismantling it... is that because of the Democrats or in spite of them? I won't claim to know, but I have noticed that I have yet to see a single Democrat admit that AA was and is institutionalized racism, and that it was therefore unjust and should have been illegal from the start. Nor do I expect to ever see that happen. Do you?
But all that is still a sideshow. You are seriously using "black hole" as evidence of racism, are you not? You must have balls the size of the moon to call anyone "silly" in the face of that.
various states are finally [attempting to] dismantling it..
Sorry, had to fix that for you.
When the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law Schools suits defending their Affirmative Action programs went to the Supreme Court, Marxaphasia here missed something.
Michigan was one of those states he's referring to.
Yet, both the UoM and the Law School insisted that their "diversity" required affirmative action, and that it was absolutely impossible for them not to have differing standards.
So despite AA being "outlawed", it hadn't changed behavior for state-run entities.
So yes, it might be illegal on the books. But amazingly enough, the words are one thing, the deeds another. (This often causes Mark problems.)
Mark, yes, we're pissed off, but: 1) we've not made a profession/lifestyle out of it; 2) look at what "they" are pissed off about vs. what we're pissed off about. They're pissed off about greeting cards, non-crimes, and feelings. We're pissed off about encroachment of government on Constitutionally-protected rights.
By the way, up until the last few decades, discrimination has not only been okay, it's been a right protected by the Constitution.
Lastly, the idiots who perpetually play the race card over ridiculous non-issues are the ones who have lumped all race issues together. Every time I see something like this greeting card flap, I think "good," because it chips away at their credibility to the point that someday nobody is going to care about this garbage. The only down side is that it will be more difficult to get anyone to notice genuine race problems, but blacks and their liberal enablers did it to themselves (cf. women and accusations of rape/sexual harrassment).
You know what these people need? Hobbies. Friends. Work. Family. Some other way to occupy their obviously copious free time than to get worked up about the most non-issue issue in the history of the universe.
This entire issue (and the flap being created thereby) reminds me of one of my all time favorite (and most consistently true) political bumper stickers:
If they haven't realized by now that the voice chips and speakers in these cards
(and a lot of speaking toys) are cheap, tinny and don't reproduce sound well,
then they have holes in their HEADS.
Also, it may be time to start emphasizing astronomy classes in the inner city
cirricula.
This isn't the first time some racist idiot has blown up over the entirely appropriate and descriptive phrase "black hole." And last time, they didn't even have the excuse of cheap speakers "changing" the words:
Some people obviously look for even the flimsiest excuse to play the race card. As far as I'm concerned, people who engage in such outrageous hysteria just make themselves look like idiots.
Does anyone know where I can buy this card - or a dozen of them, to give out to graduates?
(In the lazy ebonics speak, one word mushes into the next - and the word HO is often a term of endearment in the African American community. Just watch MTV if you don't believe me - not that the card has anything to do with that, I'm just saying)
Remember when a Washington DC politico used the word "niggardly" in a sentence - properly, according to dictionary definition - and was forced to resign? In fact, Wikipedia has a whole page on Controversies about the word niggardly.
+1 to Sarah. People who sit around trying to find excuses to be offended need job/hobby/life.
The thing is, political correctivism is a power game based on fear and social manipulation.
These little morality plays, even when irrational, serve to spread the fear and reinforce the matter. If anything, the irrationality gets folks their 15 seconds.
SiGraybeard - It's also mentioned in a book called "nig**r" the history of a troublsome word."
I remember shaking my head and thinking, "He should have used parsimonious instead."
It seems to me that what the NAACP is doing here, is promoting the stereotype that black people are stupid. This should be an Emily Litella comedy sketch, not a serious news story.
jsid-1276488057-222This is a ****ing joke at Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:00:57 +0000
And I mean it literally.
About 30 years ago there was a book of tasteless jokes going around. One of the jokes was "NAACP stands for N*****s Are Actually Colored Polacks".
Nobody would DARE say anything like that about Poles today, but this makes LA blacks look like the triple-distilled quintessence of stupid. Life imitates (a sorry excuse for) art.
If they truly were for the advancement of colored people, they'd advocate some science & astronomy courses instead of diversity training classes.
Next up, bartenders are racist because "jigger" sounds too much like the "n" word
dfwmtx, when I was a stagehand in Dallas, we had an ongoing joke about the people who get to the gig first, climb somewhere up high and install the rigging much of the set (most lights, most speakers) hangs from.
"We're not allowed to call them riggers anymore, they're Ascending Americans."
Now that I think about it, it was a black rigger who first told me that joke... maybe.... not sure, it's been too many years, and all them riggers look alike to me anyway.
BTW Mark, thank you. While I know you weren't using the term in its literal sense, nonetheless I've gotten a fair amount of amusement from your reference to the "deafness of tone" of someone with perfect pitch.
Mark, I wish I could say it surprises me that things like the "racism" of black holes has you up in arms, while things like this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2575
or the obvious favoring of those who vote in a monolithic block over those who actually think and individually weigh the merits of each candidate shown here
In the same way, it doesn't matter what was said or why, "You lie!" directed at President Hussein is "obviously fucking racist", but "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" is not. And it's most certainly not worthy of prosecuting, when it's said by black Obama supporters with billy clubs at a polling place on election day.
That clears everything up. It's all about whether or not you agree with the tone. Got it. So let's see, applying that same standard....
Mark, you are a racist fuckhead who obviously thinks Thomas Sowell should consider himself lucky if he only gets whipped and sent back to the plantation. If you had your way he would be tied to a cross and burned alive, you fucking white Christian bigot.
I should be shouting this from the housetops, right?
Markadelphia -- "[A]re you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
It's a simple Yes/No question; which several people have repeated. You can either type a whopping 2 or 3 LETTERS in response, or you can give us several paragraphs of your customary duck/dodge/spin/weave/avoid, or you can run away like a scared little girl*. Your call. We're all waiting.
[* I hereby apologize to little girls everywhere for comparing them to Markadelphia. It was offensive and wrong. I'm sorry.]
"It's impossible to call anyone a racist any more."
Echo apparently adjusts times by time zone. In my case, that post shows up as 1:03 AM Eastern. I guess that would be 12:03 AM Central, 11:03 PM Mountain, etc.
Marxaphasia:"I find if very interesting that we haven't heard about benign neglect much lately while not hearing anything at all about the oil spill."
Unlike you, most of us prefer to wait for information before rushing to judgement. Well here is a very interesting piece of information which has just surfaced:
"The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.
"One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.
"These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.
"The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water."
In other words, 100% of the oil was deliberately left in the ocean because some oil would find its way back into the ocean. And this was a government regulation in action! You know, those things which Marxy claims there aren't enough of!
So what say you Marxy? Is the kind of government decision making you want in charge of YOUR health care?
Ahh, good old Marxaphasia. When cornered, just yank out another logical fallacy for the FAIL; in this case, it's a variation on the old favorite—the Genetic Fallacy—known as the Association Fallacy:
"Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P. Bs also make claim P. Therefore, A is a B.
I was not aware that Sarah Palin had said this. So for starters, that she said it had absolutely NOTHING to do with me posting this information.
Second, according to that HuffPo article, Sarah didn't mention anything about the EPA regulations leading to the initial rejection. So you see, I couldn't have gotten this from her.
"Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills."
… "In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway."
So three days after the spill, the Dutch offered the sweeping arms and were turned down. Then in late May, the government changed its mind. The article I linked explains why they were initially turned down.
Even your own sources confirm most of this, and don't contradict the rest. So what say you Marxy? Are you going to actually address the facts this time?
I say that you are letting Sarah Palin do your talking for you...
And there you have it. Facts don't have anything to do with anything. Sarah Palin agreed with all or part of what you said, according to the moderate, centrist Huffington Post, therefore you are wrong. Nothing else needs to be known.
So Marxaphasia has dropped by and once again dodged GrumpyOldFart's question:
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
In his initial response, Marxy didn't answer the question directly. But his reply implied that he thinks it's racist to make even appropriate references to black holes. And now, even after being asked whether that implication was correct or not, and asked if he would clear that up, he apparently is fine with letting that implication stand. So there is one conclusion left:
Marxaphasia does think that referring to black holes is racist. And therefore, Stephen Hawking must be a founding member of the KKK because he talks about them all the time! And Disney's "The Black Hole" must be all about white oppression!
(…and Marxaphasia is shocked that we think he's an idiot…)
In his initial response, Marxy didn't answer the question directly.
Of course not. That would then be usable later, when it's inconvenient for him.
But his reply implied that he thinks it's racist to make even appropriate references to black holes.
You're forgetting, Mark is a CP disciple. (Even when he insists that it's not "Widespread", as it's required material for almost every teacher coming out of school now.)
Remember when he was "asking" us how we'd teach people with "Diverse" backgrounds?
A large part of CP is there is no objective reality other than what you want it to be.
So if Mark thinks your "black hole" comment is racist, he's right in his belief system! Even if you weren't being racist. Even if you were talking about black holes in space. Even if you've never, once, met anybody black, or a woman who freely has sex with many people, sometimes for money.
If it helps his cause, what you say is whatever he wants it to be. Racist. "Verbatim" from someone he doesn't like - and then he can dismiss it out of hand, regardless of it's merits!
"In order to move beyond the strangulated silence of their position, orthodox theorists would have to refute adequately the idea that knowledge does not reflect an objective or pristine onotological reality but instead constitutes a particular ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience and social relations
One of the major questions with the orthodox theory of ideology is that if fails to seriously question the idea that perhaps the terms true and false are themselves theoretically problematic and involve contentious epistemological issues."
- Giroux, Henry; McLaren, Peter
Obama's speech Tuesday was one of the most important oratories we've ever had in this country.
On a par with the Gettysburg Address, Day of Infamy, Fear is Fear Itself, Patches, and I Have a Dream.
Before the speech, I thought Obama was a blundering mope of a fool, playacting at being in charge, mealymouthing platitudes, behaving childishly and with no understanding of what he was doing.
After the speech, well, I thought the same thing.
But after the speech, I was no longer racist for thinking that!
That, my friends, is powerful. Don't ridicule that kind of oratory. That kind of inflection point comes alone once in a generation.
As for liberal ideologues in particular, the golden lesson of Obama ought to be that indulging in identity politics to the exclusion of demonstrated competence is a recipe for disaster at almost any level. When Chris Matthews gushed some months ago that he had "forgotten the president was black for an hour," he pretty much gave away his own penchant for identity politics. Liberal media elites, celebrities, and white guilt-ridden pols never let the public think much beyond this president's skin color for the entire campaign, when going beyond the book's cover is always -- every single time -- the duty of every voter, but most especially the duty of the fourth estate and all those who would use their positions to make endorsements.
At the end of the day, every one of these folks who rallied the votes for Obama -- based on nothing but his skin color and teleprompted eloquence -- have done far more damage to the cause of African-American parity than if they had refused to indulge their identity politics and had looked at the candidate's bona fides with a skeptical, purely investigative eye. As Walter Williams wrote recently, due only to the liberal bent to encourage character and ability judgments based upon one's skin color, gender, or any other artificial label, future black candidates will indeed be judged -- whether rightly or wrongly -- by the incompetency of Barack Obama.
This is inherently unfair. Obama is not a flailing president because he is half-black. His skin color has nothing whatsoever to do with his failure to lead coherently and competently. It has to do with him as an individual. Obama's failure is the result of biting off a bigger job than he was ready to chew. What is happening to Obama is precisely what would happen to anyone in so far over his head in any job. It's no more a black thing than it is a white thing; it's no more a man thing that it is a woman thing. It's an individual thing.
Marxaphasia:"I think I've figured out why the Cult hates the government so much. To put it simply, they don't like laws. In fact, I think their entire collective would be happy if there weren't any laws and they could all be ass hats about whatever they wanted."
Let's check the score, shall we:
- Arizona law passed to increase enforcement of FEDERAL LAW is passed. Marxaphasia goes ballistic against it. (Calls us "racist" for calling for obeying the damn law.)
- We constantly argue that the Federal Government must obey the law (otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution). Marxaphasia thinks the FedGov can do whatever it wants.
- We favor the Rule of Law, which is the concept that NO ONE, not even the President is above the law. Marxy prefers the Rule of Man.
- We constantly bust on Obama's nominees for their violations of laws (especially tax laws) with no consequences. Marxy defends them.
Etc., etc. etc…
Talk about a complete opposite of the truth!!!
Next thing you know, Marxaphasia is going to be telling us the black is white (wait, is that racist?), up is down, good is evil, love is hate, war is peace, slavery is freedom, and that Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
I keep hoping (yeah, distant hope, I know) that you'll actually learn something.
As for the "talking point" of BP being "fleeced", does that mean Obama is part of "The Cult" now?
"The slide in BP’s shares has led to speculation that it could be taken over but Mr Obama said: “BP is a strong and viable company, and it is in all of our interests that it remain so.”"
—Source
Didn't you see his answer above?
He can do whatever he wants! Words mean what he wants! His critical pedagogy books SAID SO. (Even thought the teaching isn't widespread! (Just in every teaching school I've looked at.))
We're just like Al Queda because it's whatever he wants! Cuba has great healthcare, because it's whatever he wants! Michael Moore has a BMI of 16! Because its.. all with me now..
WHATEVER HE WANTS.
And he's the "rugged individualist" as he cuts and pastes opinions. Whatever. He. Wants.
I guess you're cool with us concluding that you consider these references to a black hole as actually racist?
That's an incorrect assessment. I choose not to dignify that question with an answer because it has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you re-read what I wrote above, you will see that I labeled the reaction to this card as silly...just as silly as Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck and their daily whining about attacks on "Real America." In the case of Palin, she rips Seth McFarlane when he uses the word retarded on his show but then says it's ok when Rush says it in relation to liberals...truly a hypocrite.
This is also as silly as the "attack" on gun owners or the "attack" on our schools by Marxists neither of which are grounded in any sort of reality. It's almost as if you have to have a continous enemy--just like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson--otherwise life seems hollow, I guess. In fact, many of you (not all) are little different than Sharpton or Jackson. Both of these men screamed for decades about equality and now we have a black president. Now what? There still is prejudice and discrimination but it's not as bad as it used to be. Similarly, gun rights have never been better....assault weapons ban expired, hand gun restrictions over turned in DC, states making their own laws without federal interference including Kevin's own home state, and a lift on the ban in national parks, refuges, and trains.
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance" just like racists are sending sublminal messages in greeting cards. And our eduction system is being over run by Marxists who teach feel good stuff.
If you re-read what I wrote above, you will see that I labeled the reaction to this card as silly...
I've re-read everything you wrote in this thread, and I don't see it.
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"...
Haven't you yourself said on more than one occasion that a major reason why Obama wouldn't even consider gun control legislation is because he's smart enough to realize how politically disastrous it would be?
"ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"... isn't that just another way of saying"doesn't support gun rights, but considers it a low enough priority to use it for typical political horse trading"? How is that different from what you've said?
And yes, I know that you've spent more than a year now trying to twist Obama's record to make him into a gun rights supporter. And yes, I know you're frustrated because we aren't stupid enough to fall for it. And yes, I think we've all realized that he's not trying to make gun control a top priority. Do you have any examples of us saying different? Within the last year, say?
I really think you're missing the point, Mark. For one, just because President Hussein is intelligent enough not to fight that fight right now doesn't mean Pelosi and Reid will be, and it's obvious to everyone except you that they are the ones running things, not him. He's just a megaphone more often than not.
Second and more important is you don't seem to realize (or care) the resentment you'll get, why you get it or why it's justified, when you use Obama's horse trading on gun issues as an excuse to openly, blatant lie about his record and expect us to believe it.
His actions are what they are. And you are quite right, they have not significantly eroded Americans' rights regarding guns since he was elected. But as usual, you take factual data and use it to assert that any fantasy you want us to believe must be true, because ______ is true. In this case, you use allowing a single pro-gun rider on an unrelated bill and inaction on anything else to conclude that his years of support for gun control in the past should be considered meaningless or nonexistent.
In short, you know that his record is strongly anti-gun and continually use circumstances to build a deliberate lie to hide that fact.... or you consider his years of having a strongly anti-gun position to be themselves a deliberate lie on his part. Since the only time you take his balls out of your mouth is to defend his honor, Occam's Razor suggests that you are lying to cover for him, rather than accusing him of lying to cover himself.
And as usual, your hyperbole and historical illiteracy is demonstrated. "Never been better" is inane, considering "gun rights" wasn't even a term of common use until well after World War II. And Pre-1934, there were essentially no restrictions on your gun rights.
....assault weapons ban expired [During Bush's Presidency]
Obama's part?
hand gun restrictions over turned in DC
Obama's part?
states making their own laws without federal interference including Kevin's own home state
Obama's part? Oh, that's right, you don't understand the US Government. But you ran away from this last time. Notice how you're still using a debunked concept as an arguing piece?
(That's even aside from the Federal Interference - which predates Obama, to be fair - that's in existence and growing.)
Since when does the President stop states from making their own laws?
(Well, other than when they mirror Federal Immigration Law.)
and a lift on the ban in national parks, refuges, and trains.
Obama's part?
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"
Based soley on what you said above, you've proven yourself to be incompetent to judge the matter. When we take your prior comments into account, even more so. Whether he is or is not, you have defended him and claimed he was not a gun 'banner' in the same sentence you admitted he wanted to ban so-called 'assault weapons'.
He may not be, he may not be as hostile as his previous actions have indicated. It's possible. But by the same benchmark, you have yet to admit that his prior stances, positions, and actions have been strongly and definitely anti-gun, defending him inanely, and attacking those who demonstrated factually you were in error.
just like racists are sending sublminal messages in greeting cards.
If you're ridiculing it, you're doing a piss-poor job, since as above, you can't admit that a man proposing a BAN is a BANNER.
And our eduction system is being over run by Marxists who teach feel good stuff.
I can't imagine why we'd think that.
I've asked you in this comment thread more than once, so tell me, what does Critical Pedagogy (A required course to teach in the public school system) teach you?
Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.
… Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.
"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.
… "The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"
… But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.
Since we're on the topic of government intervention, thought I'd point this out. Thomas Sowell writes today that one page in a book has the power to "undermine or destroy a widely-held belief." That one page has a table showing unemployment rates by month following the 1929 stock market crash:
Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed -- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.
This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."
What the government decided to do in June 1930 -- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it -- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.
...
Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits -- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.
Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits -- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.
So then the plan is to have Ahmedinejad bail us out?
"I choose not to dignify that question with an answer because it has nothing to do with the point I was making."
You may think it has nothing to with the point. However, it is the entire reason Kevin brought it up. Therefore, your response cannot avoid the question. In fact, this question features prominently in your claim that we "have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate." Is it unwarranted discrimination to point out that it's wrong for someone to cry "Racism" where there is none?
Which explains perfectly why "critical thinkers" such as Marky oppose it.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/06/you-cant-make-this-stuff-up.html (92 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Please tell me I've accidentally been redirected to theonion.com.
Please tell me it's April 1st.
Please.
Sorry, Phil, but this is what "critical pedagogy" and "identity politics" creates - the perpetually pissed off class of people who know and understand essentially nothing, but believe the world is out to keep them down.
"creates - the perpetually pissed off class of people who know and understand essentially nothing."
Oh, the delicious irony. This seems to be an accurate characertization of most conservatives inclduing many here. It's the fault of the liberal media and CPists (formerly the liberal indoctrination machine of all educators every where). This example isn't any more silly than people who classify themselves as "Real Americans" from "Real America" who whine about Christmas being under assault every year. Everyone plays the victim card these days, Kevin, including you. Obama is coming to git your guns, remember? Even though the opposite has happened.
And, as always, more hair, golf balls, and old tires (see: eternally obtuse) in regards to the issue of race. Speaking of which, I find if very interesting that we haven't heard about benign neglect much lately while not hearing anything at all about the oil spill.
Oh, and I forgot to congratulate you...all of you, actually. My apologies. You have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate. All issues of race are now in one category and 800 pound derision for anyone who thinks otherwise.
Well done, sir!
You have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate.
So... are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist? Other than that possibility, I can't seem to find any possible connection between what you're saying and the subject at hand at all.
Of course, the fact that the Democrat party has created an environment for nearly 50 years where it was not only OK to be prejudiced and discriminate, but required by Federal law,never got the complaints (or even outright venom) that daring to call something as stupid as this the stupidity that it is does. What a surprise.
Mark, I would also like to see your answer Grumpy's question:
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
I third the motion!
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
And if not, in exactly what way has my comment "created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate"?
Awww... Disappointed I'm not writing another Überpost directed at you? Jealosy doesn't suit you, Markadelphia! ;)
You're right. I haven't said a WORD about how badly Obama is handling the oil spill! Shame on me! I mean it's like I think the Feds should sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the people actually knowledgeable and responsible FIX THE DAMNED THING without having their elbows jogged by .gov lawyers lined up as far as the eye can see.
The lawyers can come later. There's apparently plenty of blame to spread around.
Yeah! What's wrong with you Kevin?!? You're spending all this time writing about the right to own guns instead of writing about other stuff! Did you think you were writing a gun blog or something?!? ;)
I mean it's like I think the Feds should sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the people actually knowledgeable and responsible FIX THE DAMNED THING without having their elbows jogged
Who exactly would that be, Kevin? Or anyone?
GOF, your question and ensuing silliness demonstrates your complete deafness of tone. It's impossible to call anyone a racist any more. There are none. Poof! They are all gone and all that is left is a bunch of race mongers who play the victim card. Actually, this example of Kevin's reminds me a lot of how they used to frame the UFO issue. Every time you talk about UFOs, show a picture of Elvis and people who think he is alive. Every time some people are silly and offended, that means it's all liberals, CP and identity politics everywhere that are all wrong and silly.
Oh, and GOF? Three states have outlawed AA with legislation pending in many others. So I would think you would be happy...or is this going to be another "Obama's going to take our guns" meme when he's actually not.
Yet you didn't answer the question. Whether or not our response to these actions is appropriate turns on the answer to that question. Your "conclusions" seem to be based on an assumption that referring to an astronomical body known as a "black hole" in a context which is appropriate for such objects is somehow racist. Should we just go with the apparent implication that you think it is racist to ever refer to a "black hole"? Or would you prefer to give us your answer?
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
This offers up a powerful opportunity to Answer The Race Hustlers. Unprecedented.
It's impossible to call anyone a racist any more.
Yet you, and many others, have called many people racist on a regular basis.
Just recently there was claims that the "Tea Party" were screaming racist epithets. But for all the audio and video, there was no proof.
But those accusations, which were covered prominently, were never retracted.
You're familiar with that situation.
The humor here is that because of idiocy like this - the sort you promote, espouse, and defend - the reflective racist label is losing it's sting. It wasn't true most of the time before, but the automatic distancing from possibly being a racist, even remotely was useful for those who didn't want to argue on merits, or on logic, but to use the mantle of victimhood for their politics.
Remember, when Kevin talked about racism, and how it was slung regardless of the fact, the very first thing you did - was call us racists.
You're just angry your rhetorical device is being lost, not that there might actually -be- no racists.
The former dismays you far more than the possibility of the latter.
GOF, your question and ensuing silliness demonstrates your complete deafness of tone.
That sounds an awful lot like "racism is whatever I say it is." As usual, you say something that doesn't have any specific meaning, waiting for us to agree or disagree before you define it to suit yourself.
Three states have outlawed AA with legislation pending in many others. So I would think you would be happy...
And I would be, if I thought it would actually get uniformly enforced, but I know better. The quite consistent history of government throughout my lifetime tells me that conservative whites will have to go to court to defend the hiring of everyone liberals disagree with, but businesses that support liberal causes will get a pass, just as they always have. Especially given that the government is currently run by liberals, who openly fight against enforcing laws as written.
I'm sure you consider that ridiculous and paranoid, but that's hardly surprising. After all, you're the one who thinks ACORN employees giving advice on video on child prostitution is a "smear campaign".
And yes, various states are finally dismantling it... is that because of the Democrats or in spite of them? I won't claim to know, but I have noticed that I have yet to see a single Democrat admit that AA was and is institutionalized racism, and that it was therefore unjust and should have been illegal from the start. Nor do I expect to ever see that happen. Do you?
But all that is still a sideshow. You are seriously using "black hole" as evidence of racism, are you not? You must have balls the size of the moon to call anyone "silly" in the face of that.
various states are finally [attempting to] dismantling it..
Sorry, had to fix that for you.
When the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law Schools suits defending their Affirmative Action programs went to the Supreme Court, Marxaphasia here missed something.
Michigan was one of those states he's referring to.
Yet, both the UoM and the Law School insisted that their "diversity" required affirmative action, and that it was absolutely impossible for them not to have differing standards.
So despite AA being "outlawed", it hadn't changed behavior for state-run entities.
So yes, it might be illegal on the books. But amazingly enough, the words are one thing, the deeds another. (This often causes Mark problems.)
Oh, the delicious irony.
Define "irony". Feel free to use any of your ironic contributions as an example, but the definition should stand on it's own.
It's the fault of the liberal media and CPists
That's your strawman. It's not 100% the fault.
But, what, again, is your definition of critical pedagogy and what did you take out of those critical pedagogy classes you took?
Hey, Mark, apparently you missed this:
But, what, again, is your definition of critical pedagogy and what did you take out of those critical pedagogy classes you took?
Mark, yes, we're pissed off, but: 1) we've not made a profession/lifestyle out of it; 2) look at what "they" are pissed off about vs. what we're pissed off about. They're pissed off about greeting cards, non-crimes, and feelings. We're pissed off about encroachment of government on Constitutionally-protected rights.
By the way, up until the last few decades, discrimination has not only been okay, it's been a right protected by the Constitution.
Lastly, the idiots who perpetually play the race card over ridiculous non-issues are the ones who have lumped all race issues together. Every time I see something like this greeting card flap, I think "good," because it chips away at their credibility to the point that someday nobody is going to care about this garbage. The only down side is that it will be more difficult to get anyone to notice genuine race problems, but blacks and their liberal enablers did it to themselves (cf. women and accusations of rape/sexual harrassment).
You know what these people need? Hobbies. Friends. Work. Family. Some other way to occupy their obviously copious free time than to get worked up about the most non-issue issue in the history of the universe.
I KNEW you'd appreciate this one, Sarah! :-D
Oh, I do, Kevin.
Meanwhile, I wonder what kind of reaction this headline would get from the LA NAACP.
This entire issue (and the flap being created thereby) reminds me of one of my all time favorite (and most consistently true) political bumper stickers:
"Annoy a Liberal - Work Hard and be Happy"
Two thoughts:
If they haven't realized by now that the voice chips and speakers in these cards
(and a lot of speaking toys) are cheap, tinny and don't reproduce sound well,
then they have holes in their HEADS.
Also, it may be time to start emphasizing astronomy classes in the inner city
cirricula.
The lesson I learned from that video is coloured people in LA are morons.
This isn't the first time some racist idiot has blown up over the entirely appropriate and descriptive phrase "black hole." And last time, they didn't even have the excuse of cheap speakers "changing" the words:
Black Hole Controversy at Dallas Council Meeting
Some people obviously look for even the flimsiest excuse to play the race card. As far as I'm concerned, people who engage in such outrageous hysteria just make themselves look like idiots.
Meanwhile, leftists say crap like this openly.
Equality? From the left? Where?
Does anyone know where I can buy this card - or a dozen of them, to give out to graduates?
(In the lazy ebonics speak, one word mushes into the next - and the word HO is often a term of endearment in the African American community. Just watch MTV if you don't believe me - not that the card has anything to do with that, I'm just saying)
Remember when a Washington DC politico used the word "niggardly" in a sentence - properly, according to dictionary definition - and was forced to resign? In fact, Wikipedia has a whole page on Controversies about the word niggardly.
+1 to Sarah. People who sit around trying to find excuses to be offended need job/hobby/life.
The thing is, political correctivism is a power game based on fear and social manipulation.
These little morality plays, even when irrational, serve to spread the fear and reinforce the matter. If anything, the irrationality gets folks their 15 seconds.
It must be terrible to have lived so long in a country and still not be able to speak the language of that country...
Artificial Intelligence will never be able to compete with genuine stupidity.
SiGraybeard - It's also mentioned in a book called "nig**r" the history of a troublsome word."
I remember shaking my head and thinking, "He should have used parsimonious instead."
It seems to me that what the NAACP is doing here, is promoting the stereotype that black people are stupid. This should be an Emily Litella comedy sketch, not a serious news story.
"He should have used parsimonious instead."
Hey! Who you calling a vegtable?
And I mean it literally.
About 30 years ago there was a book of tasteless jokes going around. One of the jokes was "NAACP stands for N*****s Are Actually Colored Polacks".
Nobody would DARE say anything like that about Poles today, but this makes LA blacks look like the triple-distilled quintessence of stupid. Life imitates (a sorry excuse for) art.
If they truly were for the advancement of colored people, they'd advocate some science & astronomy courses instead of diversity training classes.
Next up, bartenders are racist because "jigger" sounds too much like the "n" word
dfwmtx, when I was a stagehand in Dallas, we had an ongoing joke about the people who get to the gig first, climb somewhere up high and install the rigging much of the set (most lights, most speakers) hangs from.
"We're not allowed to call them riggers anymore, they're Ascending Americans."
Now that I think about it, it was a black rigger who first told me that joke... maybe.... not sure, it's been too many years, and all them riggers look alike to me anyway.
;)
I swear I've seen this before, when Jesse Jackson took exception to the title of a film as racist.
A DISNEY film, with a bunch of robots and things, set in space. Yes, "The Black Hole".
"In other news, Black impulsiveness and willingness to take offense without cause still exceeds Black intelligence. Film at eleven."
BTW Mark, thank you. While I know you weren't using the term in its literal sense, nonetheless I've gotten a fair amount of amusement from your reference to the "deafness of tone" of someone with perfect pitch.
;)
Mark, I wish I could say it surprises me that things like the "racism" of black holes has you up in arms, while things like this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2575
or the obvious favoring of those who vote in a monolithic block over those who actually think and individually weigh the merits of each candidate shown here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election
is apparently unworthy of comment in your eyes. I really do wish I could say I'm surprised by this. Sadly, I'm not, it's completely predictable.
Waitaminit, waitaminit.... I think I get it now. "Tone". It's all about "tone".
That explains everything, once you stop and think about it.
So this card is "racist" not because of what it says or why, but because of its "tone". Not fawning enough, no doubt.
But of course this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/29/maher_obama_not_acting_like_a_real_black_president.html
is not racist, or at least not worthy of comment.
In the same way, it doesn't matter what was said or why, "You lie!" directed at President Hussein is "obviously fucking racist", but "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" is not. And it's most certainly not worthy of prosecuting, when it's said by black Obama supporters with billy clubs at a polling place on election day.
That clears everything up. It's all about whether or not you agree with the tone. Got it. So let's see, applying that same standard....
Mark, you are a racist fuckhead who obviously thinks Thomas Sowell should consider himself lucky if he only gets whipped and sent back to the plantation. If you had your way he would be tied to a cross and burned alive, you fucking white Christian bigot.
I should be shouting this from the housetops, right?
Markadelphia -- "[A]re you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
It's a simple Yes/No question; which several people have repeated. You can either type a whopping 2 or 3 LETTERS in response, or you can give us several paragraphs of your customary duck/dodge/spin/weave/avoid, or you can run away like a scared little girl*. Your call. We're all waiting.
[* I hereby apologize to little girls everywhere for comparing them to Markadelphia. It was offensive and wrong. I'm sorry.]
Unix's post at 12:03 AM...Bingo!
Which?
I think that's the one where U-J replied to this:
"It's impossible to call anyone a racist any more."
Echo apparently adjusts times by time zone. In my case, that post shows up as 1:03 AM Eastern. I guess that would be 12:03 AM Central, 11:03 PM Mountain, etc.
Ummm... The black hole is less dense?
Crotalus, I can't at all be sure that your comment answered the question I asked at my blog "What exactly is your problem?", but a commenter was.
Thanks for the fodder at least. LOL
For the record, this comment thread was intiated by You Can't Make This Stuff Up at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/.
Thanks to ECHO for making this statement necessary.
Marxaphasia: "I find if very interesting that we haven't heard about benign neglect much lately while not hearing anything at all about the oil spill."
Unlike you, most of us prefer to wait for information before rushing to judgement. Well here is a very interesting piece of information which has just surfaced:
U.S. reconsiders Dutch offer to supply oil skimmers
"The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.
"One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.
"These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.
"The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water."
In other words, 100% of the oil was deliberately left in the ocean because some oil would find its way back into the ocean. And this was a government regulation in action! You know, those things which Marxy claims there aren't enough of!
So what say you Marxy? Is the kind of government decision making you want in charge of YOUR health care?
Don't cut out the cancer. Surgery creates trash, y'see, and we can't have that.
Also, the Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, applies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
True. However, waivers have been granted in the past, and this would be an obvious case where they should be granted.
So what say you Marxy?
I say that you are letting Sarah Palin do your talking for you...tsk tsk...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sarah-palin-on-oil-spill_n_614299.html
Not surprising. After all, you do think she is more qualified to be president, right Ed?
I say that you
I say that you've intentionally avoided several simple questions above, demonstrating that even you know the inanity of your position.
I say that I can do whatever I want, Unix which basically means I'm the real rugged individualist.
"I say that I can do whatever I want, Unix which basically means I'm the real rugged individualist."
Can you (not will you) jump off the top of the Sears tower without a parachute or safety line? And live?
Ah, just like words mean "whatever you want", and reality means "whatever you want", and we're the ones in a delusional cult.
Gotcha.
you do think she is more qualified to be president, right Ed?
Qualifications for President:
* Natural born citizen of the US
* Over 35
I'd say she can't be worse than the current occupant, based on the required qualifications.
Ahh, good old Marxaphasia. When cornered, just yank out another logical fallacy for the FAIL; in this case, it's a variation on the old favorite—the Genetic Fallacy—known as the Association Fallacy:
"Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B.
I was not aware that Sarah Palin had said this. So for starters, that she said it had absolutely NOTHING to do with me posting this information.
Second, according to that HuffPo article, Sarah didn't mention anything about the EPA regulations leading to the initial rejection. So you see, I couldn't have gotten this from her.
Finally, the HuffPo article links to this article from the Washington Post in an attempt to discredit her. But look what that article says:
"Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills."
…
"In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway."
So three days after the spill, the Dutch offered the sweeping arms and were turned down. Then in late May, the government changed its mind. The article I linked explains why they were initially turned down.
Even your own sources confirm most of this, and don't contradict the rest. So what say you Marxy? Are you going to actually address the facts this time?
"I say that you are letting Sarah Palin do your talking for you ..."
Yet again, you spit up yet another Retort of the Moment without thinking through the consequences of your words, right, teacher boy?
Ok you have to be a dumb ass (Niger , is a landlocked country in Western Africa, named after the Niger River.) to get all worked up about this.
Look I can use a misplaced set of words to screw with the NAACP too
I say that you are letting Sarah Palin do your talking for you...
And there you have it. Facts don't have anything to do with anything. Sarah Palin agreed with all or part of what you said, according to the moderate, centrist Huffington Post, therefore you are wrong. Nothing else needs to be known.
So Marxaphasia has dropped by and once again dodged GrumpyOldFart's question:
"So… are you suggesting that these references to black holes actually are racist?"
In his initial response, Marxy didn't answer the question directly. But his reply implied that he thinks it's racist to make even appropriate references to black holes. And now, even after being asked whether that implication was correct or not, and asked if he would clear that up, he apparently is fine with letting that implication stand. So there is one conclusion left:
Marxaphasia does think that referring to black holes is racist. And therefore, Stephen Hawking must be a founding member of the KKK because he talks about them all the time! And Disney's "The Black Hole" must be all about white oppression!
(…and Marxaphasia is shocked that we think he's an idiot…)
In his initial response, Marxy didn't answer the question directly.
Of course not. That would then be usable later, when it's inconvenient for him.
But his reply implied that he thinks it's racist to make even appropriate references to black holes.
You're forgetting, Mark is a CP disciple. (Even when he insists that it's not "Widespread", as it's required material for almost every teacher coming out of school now.)
Remember when he was "asking" us how we'd teach people with "Diverse" backgrounds?
A large part of CP is there is no objective reality other than what you want it to be.
So if Mark thinks your "black hole" comment is racist, he's right in his belief system! Even if you weren't being racist. Even if you were talking about black holes in space. Even if you've never, once, met anybody black, or a woman who freely has sex with many people, sometimes for money.
If it helps his cause, what you say is whatever he wants it to be. Racist. "Verbatim" from someone he doesn't like - and then he can dismiss it out of hand, regardless of it's merits!
"In order to move beyond the strangulated silence of their position, orthodox theorists would have to refute adequately the idea that knowledge does not reflect an objective or pristine onotological reality but instead constitutes a particular ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience and social relations
One of the major questions with the orthodox theory of ideology is that if fails to seriously question the idea that perhaps the terms true and false are themselves theoretically problematic and involve contentious epistemological issues."
- Giroux, Henry; McLaren, Peter
BTW, Marxy…
I'm curious about why you haven't discussed Obama's speech Tuesday night, especially since even the Huffington Post thought it was lame.
"I would have found it disappointing except that I wasn't expecting much and pretty much got what I expected."
Obama's speech Tuesday was one of the most important oratories we've ever had in this country.
On a par with the Gettysburg Address, Day of Infamy, Fear is Fear Itself, Patches, and I Have a Dream.
Before the speech, I thought Obama was a blundering mope of a fool, playacting at being in charge, mealymouthing platitudes, behaving childishly and with no understanding of what he was doing.
After the speech, well, I thought the same thing.
But after the speech, I was no longer racist for thinking that!
That, my friends, is powerful. Don't ridicule that kind of oratory. That kind of inflection point comes alone once in a generation.
Oh, my aching sides!!!!
Here's another excellent piece on the speech which worth checking out:
Are Liberals Breaking Up with Obama?
I thought his final point was awesome:
As for liberal ideologues in particular, the golden lesson of Obama ought to be that indulging in identity politics to the exclusion of demonstrated competence is a recipe for disaster at almost any level. When Chris Matthews gushed some months ago that he had "forgotten the president was black for an hour," he pretty much gave away his own penchant for identity politics. Liberal media elites, celebrities, and white guilt-ridden pols never let the public think much beyond this president's skin color for the entire campaign, when going beyond the book's cover is always -- every single time -- the duty of every voter, but most especially the duty of the fourth estate and all those who would use their positions to make endorsements.
At the end of the day, every one of these folks who rallied the votes for Obama -- based on nothing but his skin color and teleprompted eloquence -- have done far more damage to the cause of African-American parity than if they had refused to indulge their identity politics and had looked at the candidate's bona fides with a skeptical, purely investigative eye. As Walter Williams wrote recently, due only to the liberal bent to encourage character and ability judgments based upon one's skin color, gender, or any other artificial label, future black candidates will indeed be judged -- whether rightly or wrongly -- by the incompetency of Barack Obama.
This is inherently unfair. Obama is not a flailing president because he is half-black. His skin color has nothing whatsoever to do with his failure to lead coherently and competently. It has to do with him as an individual. Obama's failure is the result of biting off a bigger job than he was ready to chew. What is happening to Obama is precisely what would happen to anyone in so far over his head in any job. It's no more a black thing than it is a white thing; it's no more a man thing that it is a woman thing. It's an individual thing.
Then there's this beauty from the comments on that article:
"One of the great tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts."
Now THIS is just soooooooo precious:
Marxaphasia: "I think I've figured out why the Cult hates the government so much. To put it simply, they don't like laws. In fact, I think their entire collective would be happy if there weren't any laws and they could all be ass hats about whatever they wanted."
Let's check the score, shall we:
- Arizona law passed to increase enforcement of FEDERAL LAW is passed. Marxaphasia goes ballistic against it. (Calls us "racist" for calling for obeying the damn law.)
- We constantly argue that the Federal Government must obey the law (otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution). Marxaphasia thinks the FedGov can do whatever it wants.
- We favor the Rule of Law, which is the concept that NO ONE, not even the President is above the law. Marxy prefers the Rule of Man.
- We constantly bust on Obama's nominees for their violations of laws (especially tax laws) with no consequences. Marxy defends them.
Etc., etc. etc…
Talk about a complete opposite of the truth!!!
Next thing you know, Marxaphasia is going to be telling us the black is white (wait, is that racist?), up is down, good is evil, love is hate, war is peace, slavery is freedom, and that Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
I LOVE you guys (in a completely Platonic way!)
Is it wrong to giggle every time Marxy uses the word 'Cult'?
I hope not. This latest one had me rolling almost as much as U-J's comment on the speech.
Actually, what I love is the virutal stampede to "prove me wrong" every time I make a comment. Pretty hilarious when you think about it.
Time to start talking about how BP is being fleeced as that is the lastest Cult talking point.
I keep hoping (yeah, distant hope, I know) that you'll actually learn something.
As for the "talking point" of BP being "fleeced", does that mean Obama is part of "The Cult" now?
"The slide in BP’s shares has led to speculation that it could be taken over but Mr Obama said: “BP is a strong and viable company, and it is in all of our interests that it remain so.”"
—Source
BTW, I guess you're cool with us concluding that you consider these references to a black hole as actually racist?
Ed:
Diversity.
IT'S WHATEVER HE WANTS.
Didn't you see his answer above?
He can do whatever he wants! Words mean what he wants! His critical pedagogy books SAID SO. (Even thought the teaching isn't widespread! (Just in every teaching school I've looked at.))
We're just like Al Queda because it's whatever he wants! Cuba has great healthcare, because it's whatever he wants! Michael Moore has a BMI of 16! Because its.. all with me now..
WHATEVER HE WANTS.
And he's the "rugged individualist" as he cuts and pastes opinions. Whatever. He. Wants.
He can claim that all he likes, but he "canna change th laws of physics." Or any other fundamental law of reality either.
But he can make us laugh at his god complex.
I guess you're cool with us concluding that you consider these references to a black hole as actually racist?
That's an incorrect assessment. I choose not to dignify that question with an answer because it has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you re-read what I wrote above, you will see that I labeled the reaction to this card as silly...just as silly as Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck and their daily whining about attacks on "Real America." In the case of Palin, she rips Seth McFarlane when he uses the word retarded on his show but then says it's ok when Rush says it in relation to liberals...truly a hypocrite.
This is also as silly as the "attack" on gun owners or the "attack" on our schools by Marxists neither of which are grounded in any sort of reality. It's almost as if you have to have a continous enemy--just like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson--otherwise life seems hollow, I guess. In fact, many of you (not all) are little different than Sharpton or Jackson. Both of these men screamed for decades about equality and now we have a black president. Now what? There still is prejudice and discrimination but it's not as bad as it used to be. Similarly, gun rights have never been better....assault weapons ban expired, hand gun restrictions over turned in DC, states making their own laws without federal interference including Kevin's own home state, and a lift on the ban in national parks, refuges, and trains.
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance" just like racists are sending sublminal messages in greeting cards. And our eduction system is being over run by Marxists who teach feel good stuff.
That's an incorrect assessment.
That's his assessment, based on you refusing to deny it.
I choose not to dignify that question with an answer
Then you just did, when you said it was incorrect.
Maybe before you try and ground us in reality? You might want to manage to write coherent thoughts that aren't contradicted by adjacent sentences.
And our eduction system is being over run by Marxists who teach feel good stuff.
Yes, I can't see where we'd ever get that impression.
If you re-read what I wrote above, you will see that I labeled the reaction to this card as silly...
I've re-read everything you wrote in this thread, and I don't see it.
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"...
Haven't you yourself said on more than one occasion that a major reason why Obama wouldn't even consider gun control legislation is because he's smart enough to realize how politically disastrous it would be?
"ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"... isn't that just another way of saying "doesn't support gun rights, but considers it a low enough priority to use it for typical political horse trading"? How is that different from what you've said?
And yes, I know that you've spent more than a year now trying to twist Obama's record to make him into a gun rights supporter. And yes, I know you're frustrated because we aren't stupid enough to fall for it. And yes, I think we've all realized that he's not trying to make gun control a top priority. Do you have any examples of us saying different? Within the last year, say?
I really think you're missing the point, Mark. For one, just because President Hussein is intelligent enough not to fight that fight right now doesn't mean Pelosi and Reid will be, and it's obvious to everyone except you that they are the ones running things, not him. He's just a megaphone more often than not.
Second and more important is you don't seem to realize (or care) the resentment you'll get, why you get it or why it's justified, when you use Obama's horse trading on gun issues as an excuse to openly, blatant lie about his record and expect us to believe it.
His actions are what they are. And you are quite right, they have not significantly eroded Americans' rights regarding guns since he was elected. But as usual, you take factual data and use it to assert that any fantasy you want us to believe must be true, because ______ is true. In this case, you use allowing a single pro-gun rider on an unrelated bill and inaction on anything else to conclude that his years of support for gun control in the past should be considered meaningless or nonexistent.
In short, you know that his record is strongly anti-gun and continually use circumstances to build a deliberate lie to hide that fact.... or you consider his years of having a strongly anti-gun position to be themselves a deliberate lie on his part. Since the only time you take his balls out of your mouth is to defend his honor, Occam's Razor suggests that you are lying to cover for him, rather than accusing him of lying to cover himself.
Similarly, gun rights have never been better
Due to Obama's actions?
And as usual, your hyperbole and historical illiteracy is demonstrated. "Never been better" is inane, considering "gun rights" wasn't even a term of common use until well after World War II. And Pre-1934, there were essentially no restrictions on your gun rights.
....assault weapons ban expired [During Bush's Presidency]
Obama's part?
hand gun restrictions over turned in DC
Obama's part?
states making their own laws without federal interference including Kevin's own home state
Obama's part? Oh, that's right, you don't understand the US Government. But you ran away from this last time. Notice how you're still using a debunked concept as an arguing piece?
(That's even aside from the Federal Interference - which predates Obama, to be fair - that's in existence and growing.)
Since when does the President stop states from making their own laws?
(Well, other than when they mirror Federal Immigration Law.)
and a lift on the ban in national parks, refuges, and trains.
Obama's part?
But Obama is "ready to pounce" when he "gets the chance"
Based soley on what you said above, you've proven yourself to be incompetent to judge the matter. When we take your prior comments into account, even more so. Whether he is or is not, you have defended him and claimed he was not a gun 'banner' in the same sentence you admitted he wanted to ban so-called 'assault weapons'.
He may not be, he may not be as hostile as his previous actions have indicated. It's possible. But by the same benchmark, you have yet to admit that his prior stances, positions, and actions have been strongly and definitely anti-gun, defending him inanely, and attacking those who demonstrated factually you were in error.
just like racists are sending sublminal messages in greeting cards.
If you're ridiculing it, you're doing a piss-poor job, since as above, you can't admit that a man proposing a BAN is a BANNER.
And our eduction system is being over run by Marxists who teach feel good stuff.
I can't imagine why we'd think that.
I've asked you in this comment thread more than once, so tell me, what does Critical Pedagogy (A required course to teach in the public school system) teach you?
doesn't mean Pelosi and Reid will be
Pelosi's that stupid.
Reid is apparently not that dumb, and he might be saving Obama from trying. He's actually got a A-rating from the NRA.
"Actually, what I love is the virutal stampede to "prove me wrong" every time I make a comment. Pretty hilarious when you think about it."
You invite abuse, cult boy. It would be impolite not to accept. What the hell else are you here for?
More government regulations in action:
Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.
…
Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.
"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.
…
"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"
…
But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.
—Source
It took more than a day, but apparently the barges are now back in action.
Sheesh… You'd almost think the FedGov wants this spill to be as damaging as possible!
What do you think Marxy? Is "more regulations" always a good thing?
Linoge beat me to it, and I can't write it any better than he already has:
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/06/president-obama-hates-black-people.html#comments
Spaceba, DJ :) . If the "logic" was good enough for his predecessor, it is good enough for him.
Since we're on the topic of government intervention, thought I'd point this out. Thomas Sowell writes today that one page in a book has the power to "undermine or destroy a widely-held belief." That one page has a table showing unemployment rates by month following the 1929 stock market crash:
Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed -- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.
This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."
What the government decided to do in June 1930 -- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it -- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.
...
Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits -- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.
Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits -- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.
So then the plan is to have Ahmedinejad bail us out?
Yep, Obama is definitely a gun rights supporter. You can tell by his appointees.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFkY2E5Zjg1OTFmYjMwODY1ODhlNDVkNTQ0OTdhOTI=
Markadelphia has left the argument.
Cue the MP spoofs. (That's some heavy-meta there, when you're spoofing Monty Python.)
"I choose not to dignify that question with an answer because it has nothing to do with the point I was making."
You may think it has nothing to with the point. However, it is the entire reason Kevin brought it up. Therefore, your response cannot avoid the question. In fact, this question features prominently in your claim that we "have successfully created an environment where it is OK to be prejudiced and to discriminate." Is it unwarranted discrimination to point out that it's wrong for someone to cry "Racism" where there is none?
To understand why it matters, try reading Aesop's fable, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
BTW…
Discrimination: -noun
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
-synonyms
3. discernment, taste, acumen, perception.
Which explains perfectly why "critical thinkers" such as Marky oppose it.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>