Jackson Free Press

According to The Hill, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress next Looks like Obama will be working to get the talking stick back after a month of tea parties and town halls. It'll be interesting to see if he's only talking about health insurance reform or if there's a wide swath that he's cutting; not that he, Pelosi and Reed will meet to discuss it all the day before.

The address is Obama's second since taking office and comes as the administration is losing patience with attempts to wina bipartisan bill. Negotiations between Republican and Democratic senators on the Finance Committee have gone on for months without a deal. Those talks are not expected to conclude by mid-September, as some had hoped.

Previous Commentsshow

Barry needs to come out swinging like he did when he ran for president. I can't wait until Barry gives up on trying to be bi-partisan. Jesus knew he couldn't convert Satan and refused to talk or negotiate with him. Barry gotta soon realize the same thing and put the smack down on his permanently unreconstructed and incontrovertible opponents and keep on moving. That's what we hired him for! And it's about darn time he realizes it. The Gene Taylors, et al, got to use the bathroom or get off the pot and walk across the isle and join their rightful team. He's clearly a republicans parading and pretending to be a Democrat. I liked Zell "the Democrat butcher" Miller better than I do Taylor, who is just holding a stall. Taylor has been holding a stall too long without doing either number 1 or 2. It's time for the Democrat to do them on him.

Walt

Sep 3 2009

I can't wait to see how many democrats actually vote for this insane idea. I guarantee you half of that number would be out in 2010, leaving Obama with a small yet physically challenged member of the family Anatidae on his hands. Remember government is "By the people", and this may be one of the few times in American history when people remember that fact.

Ironghost

Sep 3 2009

I don't know what the "insane idea" is that you're talking about, but I'm going to assume it's the public option? 77 percent of respondents say Public Option is Extremely or Quite important (8/20/09) That certainly doesn't sound like that bad of a step politically. It might be worthwhile to recall that (a.) the loudest of the tea-baggers was not going to vote for a Democrat anyway and (b.) things change and people move on. If the economy comes back at all and/or people see benefits from the stimulus spending (like local jobs) they'll put back the Dems. After all, the only people polling lower than Dems in Congress are Republicans, and more of them are retiring in 2010 than Dems in the House. (Senate is more interesting, but it's still a race to 40-1-2 for the GOP, not to 50.)

Todd Stauffer

Sep 4 2009

Ironghost, you are correct: Government is "By the People". The part you omitted is that Government is also, "For the People." This is the position that President Obama takes. The majority of the people at these town-hall meetings and tea parties are those who are Red-White-and Blue card holders (Medicare Recipients). If these folks are so against Universal Health Care with a government option, convience me, turn in your Medicare/Medicade cards. Pull Mam-o and Pap-o out of the nursing homes and tell your kids and grands that you will not allow them to use the S-CHIP program. For those who are willing to do this, I will then believe that you are sincere in your argument and that this is not your war against the "have nots" who have not been given their piece of the pie that your slices have already been cut from. I agree with Walt. Obama is just wasting time trying to get Rebublican support for this bill. The more he tries to teach them, the dummer he gets. It's time for him to put back on the smart hat he wore during his campaign and stop trying to deal with people who are simply playing games and trying to set him up for a knock out punch in 2012. Just saying.

justjess

Sep 4 2009

Ironghost: You all remind me of people that fall in love with their captors. Our healthcare system needs to be fixed and if we leave it up to you guys, it will never get fixed. There is nothing "insane" about trying something different. Insanity is thinking you will get a different result with the same actions. Also, I have had it with these attacks on Obama as if he is an alien or something. A loser on WJNT even called Obama a "half-breed" this morning on the radio and you all want to say that opposition to him is not racially motivated. I personally am not going to sit back and let the argument be framed this way. IF you guys want to oppose a particular ideology or approach, that is fine, but it has gone way past that for some of you.

Goldenae

Sep 4 2009

We were talking elections. I'm pointing out that Obama doesn't even have all the democrats on board, much less the republicans. It's entirely possible he won't get the support he wants, or if he does he could lose what support he has in the elections in 2010. Which would still have us stuck with multi-billion dollar deficits, but that's not this debate.

Ironghost

Sep 4 2009

I agree with Goldenae. The ugly strain that has been unleashed in this country right now is too much. It will rip us apart if Republicans don't start holding each other accountable -- and distancing from the wingnuts. Ironghost, talk issues here, and support what you say. Enough empty rhetoric of late. Please. I know you can do better. I've seen it. Pull yourself back from the mindless abyss. And I say with all seriousness. Trying to talk intelligently about these issues is the patriotic thing to do. Our country simply won't survive the level of nastiness being pushed by insurance lobbyists and FOX News types. Folks, we can do better.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2009

Just remember that President Obama was elected to an America that was at the edge of a cliff and with one wrong move, we could have gone over. Instead of moving to what could have been America's fate, the end of the Recession and the beginning of a Depression, we are seeing signs of recovery. These are the stories that you hear so little about. Where was this multi-billion dollar deficit argument when Bill Clinton inherited Bush's debt? At the end of his term, America had moved from the red, financially, to the black. This president has always welcomed debate: even from his own party members. At the end of the day, we will see Democrats, Independents and a few well thinking Rebublicans vote for this bill that has been on the table now for more than two decades.

justjess

Sep 4 2009

Iron...you confused me on the whole "insane idea" thing. Still not clear what that's about. There's no doubt that Obama and/or Congressional Democrats could do any number of things that would affect the mid-term elections. Generally speaking, the opposition party always picks up seats in a mid-term, so they'll have to do some remarkable things to keep from losing seats. That said, the swing of power from 2002 to 2008 has been so dramatic in an historical context that Dems are unlikely to lose control of any part of the government until 2012. The Congressional GOP polls very poorly right now -- worse than Dems -- AND they have the very serious problem that they're relying on the fringe elements of their party to push the debate in public, which could easily splinter their coalition of corporate conservatives and social traditionalists. If health insurance reform passes -- and perhaps before -- you're going to hear some political push-back on the tea-baggers from some of the unlikely partners in health insurance reform -- some of country's largest companies and corporate leaders -- Wal-Mart, for instance, is supporting the public option right along side its arch-nemesis, the Service Employees International Union. Likewise, the debate will continue to shift as a bill takes final shape in Congress, because right now it's open-season without real specifics. It'll become a whole lot more difficult to worry over "death panels" and whatnot once the close-to-final language is on the table. Oh, and by the time the actual 2010 elections come around, we'll be talking about something else. If there's movement on the economy then Dems will stay in office. Plus, it'll be a bonus for them if millions of folks suddenly have health insurance and the Dems can effectively paint the GOP as having blocked a significant entitlement.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 4 2009

It seems clear why the health-insurance lobby is going all in right now: They know that once Americans have better access to health care, we won't go back. Thus, all the vicious rumors and lies to scare people. What's remarkable is when they look you in the face and tell you something that just isn't true. A major problem the country is facing is that the media are not doing their homework, and are giving equal time to lies. Reminds me of how we ended up with Melton as mayor here: The media didn't do its job.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2009

Ladd: Someone at JFP was just referred to on my blog, I thought you would be interested to know. Interesting to see what people think. http://goldenae.wordpress.com/

Goldenae

Sep 4 2009

Do you mean this comment? I guess I can understand that. People are free to be who they are in America, and to be criticized for their beliefs. I certainly know white people, like your buddy at a local "Free Press" site, who act as if they resent being white and identify more strongly with blacks and other racial minorities. I assume that person is talking about me, although it could be any number of progressive white folks who post here. What is so sad about such a statement is how it reveals "racial identity" politics on behalf of the white conservative. That is, why would you indicate that someone "resents" being white because they are willing to try to comprehend, and perhaps even be sympathetic to, the plight of black Americans? Why make the seriously flawed leap in logic to assume that means the person resents being white. I certainly don't resent being white -- I know it makes my life easier, in fact -- but I also don't defend everything a white person does, especially due to being white. I'm just not that overly identified with the white race; I identity with the human race, which also means criticizing the jerks, regardless of their race. In other words, that is ultimate identity posturing, and the poor fella probably doesn't even know it.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2009

Ladd: You got it! Just because someone is the type of person that can identify with something without having experienced it, they must be a "wanna be". People misinterpret my position on Black conservatives, but I do not have a problem with some conservative ideas, I have a problem with their tactics. If you go to the National Black Republican Association, all you will see is derogatory talk about Obama and the Black community in general. I do not see what that has to do with being conservative. So, I tell Black conservatives that if you feel the need to behave like that you really do not want to attract other Blacks to conservatism. The guy liken what I say about them to some white people being able to admit things that go on racially that are foul. Not the same.

Goldenae

Sep 4 2009

I agree with you. I'm actually "conservative" on some issues -- more so, in fact, than some of the wingnuts who don't bother to do their homework. Eminent domain, for instance. As for the "identity" fella, some African Americans will say the same thing about white people who study "their" history, too. I'm rather thrilled to be disliked by both the Jackson Advocate and the Northside apologists, not to mention Richard Barrett's crowd. You're doing something right when both extremes hate you. They're all race-identity types. You have to work just as hard to exclude people in a diversity city such as ours as you do to include them -- harder, I believe. I feel sorry for anybody who finds their identity in their own race more than anything. I'm more sympathetic toward it with black people because we all know that it comes from white supremacy. But that doesn't mean I'm ashamed of being white. I'm ashamed of the assholes who are white. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2009

I think it's high time Obama just decide to go at it alone on health care reform. If he hasn't gotten the message already, the Republicans aren't willing to do anything about reform (except perhaps for Maine senator Olympia Snowe, but who knows how much pressure she will be under to bow out). They've yet to offer a plan and from the looks of it, they're not going to. All they're interested in is playing politics and getting money from the insurance lobby to spread such vile messages about reform. The party has already shown how far off a cliff they're falling with the death panels, the birther movement and now with them being in a tizzy over Obama speaking to school children on Tuesday--even to the point that parents are being asked to keep their children out of school. It's nice that he wants to invite people from the other side of the aisle, but when your invitation is constantly being turned down, it's time to just move on.

golden eagle

Sep 6 2009

What the pluck is wrong with Congressman, Joe Wizard, of South Carolina, who along with other despicable repugnant republicans disrespected the president of the US of A? Those WIZARDS and GRAND persons of the republican party, aka the grand ole party, are nuttier than a nutter butter sandwich. Since Obama is brilliant and make few errors of any nature and kind his opponents just sit there with a bulldog frown and hate him. I thought for a second or two, after Joe Wizard called Obama a liar, Obama would finally lose his cool and come out in the audience and go Chris Brown on the South Carolina southern gentlemen. Had he done it though, those same republicans would have said, "We told y'all, all of them are crazy and violent." Big ups to Obama for staying the course and maintaining his cool like a President of the USA. Did y'all hear about the California Assemblyman, another repugnant republican with big family values getting caught telling a buddy and fellow assemblyman about his sexcapades while the microphone was still on. Of course, being the honest and smart republican he is, he thought the microphone was off. Once caught he declared he was only making it all up. Another phony exposed.

Walt

Sep 14 2009

Walt- according to factcheck.org Obama kinda streached the truth a couple of times in his speech.

BubbaT

Sep 14 2009

BubbaT, does this justify Wilson calling the President of the United States of America a lie? This is the first time in the history of our country that a president in a congressional session was treated like this. Many of President Obama's critics go far beyond the debatable issues:This thing has been reduced to blatant racism. Many of the signs at the Washington tea party demonstration last weekend evidenced that.

justjess

Sep 15 2009

[quote]This is the first time in the history of our country that a president in a congressional session was treated like this.[/quote] *snerk* Oh heck no. Sorry!

Ironghost

Sep 15 2009

Yes, factcheck.org does say that, Bubba; they meticulously factcheck what all presidents say, regardless of party, these days. But be sure to read the whole thing to put the "stretching the truth" point into its true context. The point here is twofold: (a) What Wilson did was onerous regardless of whether Obama was stretching the truth when he said it, and (b) much worse: Wilson and supporters are continuing to outright lie about what Wilson was accusing Obama of lying about -- they're still spreading the illegal immigrant lie. So Bubba, how many outright, stupid, blatant lies does it take to get you to criticize a Republican?

DonnaLadd

Sep 15 2009

Yes, Iron. This hasn't happened. What Wilson did can't be compared with previous behavior in these situations any more than a Serena Williams apologist can compare her disgusting behavior with John McEnroe's (who was certainly juvenile in his day). Beyond that, you're just heckling at this point, and it's getting old. We need to lose some of the "snerk" attitude and try to discuss real issues on this site, which exists to promoe civil community conversation and real debate. All this childishness threatens to bring down the level on this site to that on local conservative blogs, and I'm just not interested. Joe Wilson did what he did, drawing criticism of substance from both parties, and silly apologies and false comparisons to the lesser thinkers who defend certain parties no matter what. Going forward: Issues and attributed statements, not to mention civility. If you don't want to play by the rules, go find another blog. The issues on the table in our country is too important for juvenile "snerk" posts. Starting with this comment, further comments will be on the topic of what Obama *said* in the speech to Congress. Others will be deleted no matter who you are. Act like adults or leave.

DonnaLadd

Sep 15 2009

Compare what Kanye West, Serena Williams and Joe Wilson did. A rapper, tennis player and Congressman. All of them were wrong in their actions and most reasonable people can admit that. However, with Kanye and Serena, no one was saying they were wrong, but....It is not a matter of whether Joe Wilson was accurate, but if his behavior was appropriate and it was not. But on top of it not being appropriate, he also was inaccurate. So, that leaves no basis for all this adulation. You know people have lost their way when they start applauding stupidity. All of the things we see are related. Conservatives claiming to be insulted that the President wants to encourage their kids and Joe Wilson blatantly disrespecting the President, it all comes from the same mindset. Those actions represent irrational hate far beyond the scope of politics. I think it is also reasonable to link the fact that Joe Wilson wanted the Confederate Flag to remain flying over the S.C. capital and his outburst. It is hard to believe that what he did was not intentional, but even if it was not, that sort of a lack of control is troubling.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

Baquan: It is blaring. I think reasonable people can see something and see it for what it is. I talk about race a lot, but I actually am disappointed everytime I see where it is an issue. It is hard to look at the lack of respect directed toward President Obama and not see that for what it is. Not that I could not see it before, but hearing conservatives complain about President Obama speaking to their kids was such an obvious thing. They acted like Obama merely talking to their kids would contaminate them. They basically treated President Obama like he was a molester. As if they can think of any better of a role model for their kids aside from themselves than the President of the United States.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

I think that people that are not on the receiving end of racism are far less likely to recognize it or admit it exist. It seems like it should be something that is obvious to everyone. But I liken it to getting a new car and then beginning to notice how many other people have that model car when you never noticed that before. People that have experienced discrimination know that it is not something that is always clear to other people. I have seen situations where people admitted they were racist after the fact and some individuals still fail to recognize what was admitted.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

There are times when something happens that lets you know how you perceive other people of a different race or how they perceive you. My daughter has a genetic disorder where she has little pigment in her skin. She is an African American baby that looks white. Everytime we go out, we can see the expression on people's face, "what is that White baby doing with that Black couple?" It makes you think that some people think that a White baby is "too good" to be raised by Black parents. After a while, you can tell it is something more than just curiosity, there is a level of disgust in people's eyes. I think when you are exposed to that sort of thing on a routine basis, your senses become keen to when something is not right from a racial perspective. I think people do not realize how they really feel about race until it directly confronts them. You may think you are okay with Black people until your daughter falls in love with one. You may think you are okay with Black people until you get into an argument with one at work. Sometimes there are things inside of us that we do not know are there until they pop out.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

If you let your planned little Jefferson Davis, Lil Robert E. Lee, Lil Ross Barnett, Lil Annie Coulter and Lil Michelle Malkin see that Obama is not the Anti-Christ, the Devil, a Socialist, a Nazi or Communist or even a bad person, they might soon say mama and daddy are liars and I don't won't to emulate them. They may also say Obama is a brilliant, wonderful and beautiful person and so is his family. Even worse, they might say I'm gonna get me one of those kinds of people for a friend, wife or husband. Some people can't take a chance at that, so they make a deal with the devil to keep the status quo at all cost.

Walt

Sep 15 2009

What unnerved me almost as much as representative Joe Wizard's comment was the other republican senators and representatives sitting there looking as swoll as the Goodyear blimp and holding up their own healthcare plan as it Obama would or should present that. I even saw my representative sitting there swoll too. I formerly liked him no matter the fact that I felt he was working for the devil. That night though he seemed a little too happy or pleased with the devil's business. He's clearly not his own man. He is a party you know what. I'll vote for that clear racist the next time before I vote for him.

Walt

Sep 15 2009

Walt- from your usual drivel that you post, Are saying that because your representative doesn't agree with Obama healthcare plans, he is not his own man and a racist? I would think that would make him his own man, not to blindly follow Obama just because he President.

BubbaT

Sep 15 2009

I'm saying I expect him to listen to the speech of the President of the United States with the respect and decency the office requires and he would expect if he was the president or speaker. I didn't expect complicity with Joe Wizard's behavior absent the verbal outburst. You and he know what I'm talking about Bubba.

Walt

Sep 15 2009

Which Miss. congressman disrespected the President? I have seen nothing where they have disrespected him, most turned and looked at Wilson like he was a fool.

BubbaT

Sep 15 2009

Interesting piece on the media's belated -- and somewhat sudden -- recognition that some of this stuff might be racial: Media Notice an Elephant in the Room. Why is it suddenly acceptable to talk about hidden racial resentment as a motive for verbally assaulting the president, and/or fearing the policies he will enact? Hemant Shah, a professor of journalism and mass communication at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, uses a chemical process as an analogy. "I don't know what the process is called when you put chemicals into a beaker, and one last drop shifts the color of the liquid," he says. "I think it's been dripping since the campaign, when Palin's rallies were getting hateful. The language wasn't quite racial, but you had people coming to those rallies carrying Curious George dolls. I think it then built up over time."

Todd Stauffer

Sep 15 2009

Also, I don't know if we've mentioned it anywhere on the site, but the House has voted to rebuke Wilson for his "You Lie" during the joint session. Vote fell almost along party lines, with seven GOPers voting for it and and handful of Dems voting against it or "present."

Todd Stauffer

Sep 15 2009

Goldenae - good posts.

Izzy

Sep 15 2009

Goldenae- Did you see where Obama called Kanye West a jackass. LOL Have to say that's the first thing he has ever said I agree with. :)

BubbaT

Sep 15 2009

Anyone notice how the claims of "personal responsibility" that Republicans usually wave around have been silent since Sen. Craig, David Victor, Sen. Ensign, Rep. Joe Wilson and others. I always thought it was just something to say and now I know it is true. Rep. Wilson had no problem publicly doing what he did, but there was no way he was going to publicly apologize. As for Obama calling Kanye a "Jackass", he was for doing what he did. Reasonable people can admit that. IT would be stupid to try to defend Kanye like people are defending Wilson.

Goldenae

Sep 16 2009

Every Conservative talking head will say that racism exist. However, no specific example ever qualifies as being racism. Ask a conservative to give you an example of another conservative/Republican being racist and you will get a blank.

Goldenae

Sep 16 2009

Jimmy Carter's comments are priceless. The long and short of his story is: Don't try to out SOUTH a SOUTHERNER. He's been there; done that. Former President Jimmy Carter knows that if it weighs thousands of pounds, is hairless, has a snout, prolonged into a muscular trunk, has large tusks, two icisors in the upper jaw that furnish ivory, with BIG floppy ears, IT IS AN ELEPHANT. This is the picture that Carter painted about racism. He was born and raised in the South. He grew up around black folks and was very close to one of his black childhood friends. He was Gov. of Ga. and if there is an ELEPHANT in the room (racism), he knows it; therefore, Mr. Wilson, you have been popped!

justjess

Sep 16 2009

And it was Joe Wilson who thought it was a disgrace for Stromg Thurmond's daughter to come out and say that she was a product of his relationship with a black woman. I figured conservatives would be none too happy about what Jimmy Carter yesterday evening. Well, they need to get over it and face up to the monster that they continue to perpetuate.

golden eagle

Sep 16 2009

I just got called a racist on Yall Politics because I am making the point that Conservatives always claim that racism exist, but never see it in a particular incident. What is it about providing cover for racist that people feel they have to do it? Why is it so hard to ask yourself, if someone was a racist, what would they say or do? If the answer happens to be the same things that you say or do, it would behoove you to adjust your manner if you do not want to be associated with racist. I see a beak, feathers, waddling, and hear quacking, but I cant call it a duck.

Goldenae

Sep 16 2009

Baquan: I would probably be identified as a "half breed" like Obama, because I am a light-skinned African American. But growing up light-skinned, you tend to get it from both sides. Blacks assume you think you are better and want to be white, but Whites know you are Black. Prejudice is real.

Goldenae

Sep 16 2009

Then I am really confused. What are the behaviors/thoughts of a "half breed" racist??? I've been called a black racist and for sure I have thought many whites to be racist.

justjess

Sep 16 2009

Justjess: Calling someone a "half-breed" would be racist because it asserts that two different species mated to make a person. Blacks and whites are of the same genus and species, homo-sapien. I said people would/have referred to me(and Obama) as a "half-breed" because I am very light skinned even though both of my parents are black. Also, some try to make the distinction that Obama is only "Half-black" as a way to say that he is not Black. But when a slave and a slave master had a child, that child was considered Black. They use to make the case that any drop of Black blood made you Black. Now that Obama has been elected they created a new category, "half Black".

Goldenae

Sep 16 2009

Isn't your race considered whatever race the mother is? So Obama would be white and child of a slave master and slave would be black, or am I wrong about that?

BubbaT

Sep 16 2009

um, yeah, I think that's to determine whether or not you are Jewish, BubbaT. Never heard that about race before. I have heard things about quarters, halfs, etc. The thing about race is, the biological reality is hard to pin down - why some "white" people have darker skin than some "blacks." It isn't sensible or logical. Yet, the beliefs people hold about racial identity are all too real. I was thinking about racial issues today at the gym. I swim in a pool in Jackson maybe 4-5 a week. More than 4 times now I have been approached by an elder African American gym member to be told 1) I swim well and 2) they never learned to swim. I have been involved in the making of a documentary about why blacks and hispanics are not represented in professional swimming - diagnosis - racism. See the incident in Pennsylvania this summer if you think it's over. To me it's tragic that these people missed out on one of life's great joys - to swim! And not to mention it keeps them safe in the case of a water accident.

Izzy

Sep 16 2009

Obama is a soul brother, Bubba. That's what he say he is, and it what white America says he is. What is amazing to me is that for years, we blacks were told we couldn't learn, couldn't be educated, could perform in certain educational arenas, couldn't run, jump or catch a ball like whites. We always knew it was lie but we still had to prove it. As to the swimming matter, by and large, our ancestors were never taught how to swim once kidnapped, brought here and given so much steady work without just compensation. In fact, we were discouraged from learning to swim by master, other whites and our own people due to fears of escape and drowning. Moreover, we weren't even allowed into the city or public pools. Once segregation was defeated racist white people closed down the swimming pools. Master and Boss Jim Crow were too scared we would see a half-naked white women and rape her, like he did the black woman, even children, for generations. While it's never stated publicly, Master and Mr. Crow were also scared those white women might start to digging the brothers. Many whites are still afraid of this to this day. They can't stop God's order, though, for people to mix. As it presently stand, the multiple racists of the GOP, Sly as a Fox News and elsewhere are trying to convince we blacks and good white folks that the racism we see isn't racism at all. In other words, they are not peeing but sweating on us. I won't try to speak for good white folks here, but I will take the liberty here and say we blacks know racist white people when we see them. Over 400 years of much of the same things happening to us has made us experts on the issue, no matter the many denials. We are occasionally wrong though. Not often though!

Walt

Sep 16 2009

Bubba: I think you know you are wrong. The distinction you just tried to make was never one put forth when people were trying to take people's rights. The standard was a single "drop" of Black blood made you Black. I am not saying that is how it should be, but that is how it has been. Even if a person can not see the racial tint to all of the hatred directed toward Obama, I can not for the life of me understand how some people see things so one sided. Ask a lot of Conservatives if Obama is racist and if he "plays the race card" and they will say yes. But I would ask them based on what? This guy has tried to avoid race and making race an issue as much as he could. On the other hand, the same conservatives will allow Rush Limbaugh to inject race into issues and think nothing of it. Rush recently took the incident of the Black kids beating up a White kid on a bus to say that was an example of "Obama's America, where Black kids beat up white kids". Why can't conservatives see that for what it is, inciting hatred between the races? The officers involved said that it did not appear to be about race and there even was a White kid in the top left of the video laughing.Rush Limbaugh gets away with claiming other people play the race card when that is a big part of what he does. But nobody calls him on it. Can a conservative tell me how they allow Rush to operate this way?

Goldenae

Sep 17 2009

I am all for differences of opinion, the best answers come from people of different mindsets looking at issues and trying to find solutions. I am even "conservative" in a lot of my thinking, but I can not get beyond this culture of pitting Blacks against Whites. I understand that Whites may not recognize things the same way I do, but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously obvious. I was just out with a Supervisor and we came up on this White guy who got a real nasty attitude with me when I asked him a question. The Supervisor who is White went back to talk to the guy and the man said that he tried to tell that "boy"(me) something. It was pretty obvious what the deal ws to me, but I cant say that it was so obvious for the Supervisor even though he apologized for the guys behavior. There is nothing uncommon about that, I see that attitude all the time. It is encouraged by the characters in talk radio. But I want a "conservative" to tell us why they don't speak out against that kind of thing if that is not what they are all about. On top of that, a lot of people hate White liberals because they say they pander to Blacks. As if recognizing something for what it is is pandering. You can best believe they keep track of what is said here, I just wish they had the courage to defend the stuff that goes on in the name of conservatism.

Goldenae

Sep 17 2009

Goldenae- I should have worded that different, I was really talking about now, legally what determines race, instead of 50 to 150yrs ago. I did do a little looking around and it seems in most of the modern world a child's race born to a mix race couple, the parents can chose either or it defaults to the mother. But that's not always true in the U.S. and where skin color determines race when that is not accurate.

BubbaT

Sep 17 2009

Bubba: Theoretically, you can do a lot of things. But determinations of race are often made more by people other than the individual. Even if what you thought was true, if President Obama put down "white" on an application and showed up for a job, what do you think the reaction would be? They wouldn't say it was a tan. So, a lot of this stuff is a moot point. Problems with race have not been with what people thought of themselves, but of what other thought of particular people because of their skin color. Legally, a mixed child may get to choose, but socially, it depends on how they look, that is just the truth.

Goldenae

Sep 17 2009

This piece at The Institute for Southern Studies makes an interesting point about the racial nature of Wilson's outburst that I haven't heard in many other places so far. Not only might Wilson have somehow felt it was OK to holler at the POTUS because the POTUS is black. We've established that, somehow, that entered into the mix. But the issue that got him hollering in the first place is his own misunderstanding of the access that undocumented immigrants would have in the reformed healthcare system. It's no coincidence that the line in Obama's address that forced Wilson to his feet focused on whether the Democratic health bill would cover immigrants who aren't in the country legally. Rep. Wilson has been at the forefront of the nativist -- and at times openly xenophobic -- right-wing movement against not only undocumented immigrants, but immigration in general. In other words, whatever way you slice it, Colonel Wilson appears to have a problem with "the other."

Todd Stauffer

Sep 17 2009

So it's out of the question to interpret his outburst (which was, in my opinion, inappropriate, unnecessary, and ineffectual) as anger over the lack of any mechanism for stopping illegal aliens from gaining access to the healthcare plan (despite Obama's claim to the contrary), or outrage that American taxpayers will be covering healthcare costs for those who seek only to benefit from the American system without contributing their due? The only option is to assume that he chose that moment because he doesn't like people with skin darker than his own? Really?

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 17 2009

Todd- while the bill does say that no undocumented immirgrants will have access to the healthcare sysetem, it does not have a provision to check people citizenship so undocumentecd immirgrants could get coverarge under it. Couldn't they get coverage under it?

BubbaT

Sep 17 2009

Baquan, I'm willing to go along with the idea that most of the opposition to Obama is not racist or racial, thus far. I listened to David Gergen last night, who I believe is brilliant, honest, knowing, open-minded and even or fair in his regards to both parties and the truth. While I can easily respect his opinion as to most of the country, I'm not sure I share his opinion as it relates to the south. The south has always been different. We all know it! Nevertheless I won't discount President Carter or his comments. He's certainly right as to many Obama opponents. Like Goldenae says even the staunchest conservative will admit racism still exist. Amazingly none of them can point to any racists, though. I guess none of them personally knows any. This is remarkable but good if true, but what is the chance of it being the truth. Similarly, they will not rebuke or denounce any of those fringe lunatics or alleged racists who apparently out themselves by misbehavior such as Congressman Wilson. I reckon short of killing someone and saying I did it due to racism, the GOP and Fox are with them all the way, denial after denial. I suppose if you got in power solely because of racism, it's not appropriate to ever denounce it. Otherwise you would let morality trumps winning! That my friend is the bottom line. He lives, after all!

Walt

Sep 17 2009

My friend Izzy brought up a great point yesterday about black folks and swimming. While we had great impediments to learning how to swim in he past, most of them don't exist any more. We gotta learn how to swim now. Two of my grandkids swim like a fish. Not surprisingly, though, the two with a white mother are the ones who are great swimmers. She taught them how to swim as soon as she could. The other two with black mothers are learning. I'm going to get me a big inner tube and jump in one day myself. My father whipped me and all my brothers for trying to learn how to swim in a pond. Several of my cousins got drowned trying to teach themselves to swim. New orleans and Katrina should have taught us the value of learning to swim.

Walt

Sep 17 2009

Todd- while the bill does say that no undocumented immirgrants will have access to the healthcare sysetem, it does not have a provision to check people citizenship so undocumentecd immirgrants could get coverarge under it. Couldn't they get coverage under it? Only unlawfully. It seems the risk would be the same as getting medicare or social security as an undocumented worker, which would be fraud and, I assume, often found out. (There's also the question of whether legal, documented immigrants should get healthcare, which means that you wouldn't be checking for "citizenship" but simply accurate documentation.) And remember, our hospitals are going to offer care to undocumented immigrants in the ER regardless -- that's lawful and it's morally correct. Turning away non-citizens or people without document who have a critical health problem is immoral. That said, the fact that our ER system is overwhelmed with cases of people who don't have insurance (regardless of their country of origin) is part of the problem.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 18 2009

The only option is to assume that he chose that moment because he doesn't like people with skin darker than his own? Really? mgeof: Nope. "Like" or "dislike" would certainly have nothing to do with the fact that Colonel Wilson felt that he could publicly disrespect this president at this time. That's an oversimplification and I can't know whether or not he dislikes the president because of his skin color. (That he clearly dislikes the president seems unassailable.) Here's what we know...Wilson is a U.S. Representative and a retired National Guard Colonel, but he somehow brought himself to holler at the president during a joint session of Congress. This guy isn't a typical tea-partier or a caller on Rush's show or an angry agitator in the streets of San Francisco...he's supposed to be an upstanding citizen who knows better...presumbably even a Southern gentlemen (He worked for Strom, loves the stars-and-bars and knows his Confederate heritage) with the requisite sense of decorum and charm. Yet, somehow, he lets loose and calls the president a liar. Now I don't know what's in his heart, but I could see what was on his face. Why the contempt for THIS president, at THIS moment and over THIS issue? I'm NOT saying that Wilson is a racist, and I'd go so far as to say that I imagine he doesn't believe he's one. But there is *something* there -- call it privilege or pride or ideological indignation -- that allows him to have an unhealthy contempt for his political adversaries over issues that don't pass the smell test. Whether undocumented workers get healthcare is not an issue on par with whether we go to war unjustly. But the second part of the question troubles me in the context of the first part...why *such* anger over the unlikely possibility that an undocumented worker is going to somehow get a healthcare policy? Why does that enrage Colonel Wilson so?

Todd Stauffer

Sep 18 2009

Walt, no one should have to risk drowning trying to teach themselves to swim. No wonder your dad gave you a whuppin'. It's better now but more can be done. I tell the Af-Am seniors at my gym, why not start now? You have the time and it's easier on the joints to exercise in water. As for your other comment, this part really got me: "That my friend is the bottom line. He lives, after all!'

Izzy

Sep 18 2009

mgeoffriau: Conservatives want to view each incident independently and not admit that they are part of a pattern of behavior that exist out there. Everyone wants to claim that just because conservatives would oppose a White liberal Obama that they can not fathom the fact that Obama is Black having any negative aspects for some. The two are not independent of each other. If it is not racism, conservatives need to tell us what it is that has allowed so many of them to believe Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a Christian and is the anti-Christ. Folks have a right to claim such ridiculous notions are something, if not racist then what?

Goldenae

Sep 18 2009

I just wonder why so many people can definitively say that it is NOT racism, but will not say what they think it actually is. If it is not racism, it is still some other insanity driven reality.

Goldenae

Sep 18 2009

It never ceases to amaze me how every right-winger that posts on this site is challenged to "bring the facts" and "support their argument"; failing to meet this standard often produces some kind of ultimatum about posting privileges being dependent on the ability to do so. And yet, discussions go on for days in which multiple posters make widespread, unfounded generalizations about conservatives and right-wingers. And not a word is said.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

I converse with Paul Gallo and I will tell you that he can not see the complaints that people have about talk radio. He thinks the criticism is basically derangement. Some of these folks can not take reasoned positions on things, it is all or nothing. They act like being a gun supporter means you have to support a nut that is carrying a gun and sign talking about "watering the tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants". Reasonable people ought to be able to agree that sort of thing is not needed. Nuts that think they are doing a service are the ones that try to assasinate Presidents. It will always be that way. Talk radio is creating an environment where the nuts can exist in plan sight.

Goldenae

Sep 18 2009

Mgeoffriau: Conservatives are the ones that are stating without question that Obama is racist, despite lacking quotes or supporting that notion. Also, people are simply describing to you the environment that exist among conservatives today and asking if not racism then what is it? But you all never have an answer. There is nothing widespread, unfounded or general about saying a significant percentage of conservatives think Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a Christian, is or could be the anti-Christ, etc. I simply want to know that if that is not racism, what other form of insanity is it?

Goldenae

Sep 18 2009

There are particular reasons for all those things: Many questioned why it took so long to produce a birth certificate when his citizenship was called into question. Was it fair? Possibly not, but it's certainly not surprising that some conservatives would latch onto anything that might bar the most popular Democrat candidate from the Presidential office. I doubt Obama's professed Christianity for the same reason I doubt any other politician's professed Christianity (and that includes W.) -- more often than not, it serves only to benefit their public image. The Christianity described in the Bible is very different; it involves personal sacrifice and humility. And the anti-Christ claims are attached to every charismatic, smooth-talking world leader. W. got a pass because he could barely get through a speech without substituting incorrect words or mispronunciations -- though perhaps that would be the most disarming disguise for the anti-Christ. The point is that instead of actually considering the reasons for these things, it's become acceptable to just chalk them all up to "racism". I don't like Obama because of his leftist policies, and I feel he's particularly dangerous because of his talent for making impossible promises that cannot be kept and positioning himself to avoid the potentially negative consequences. Maybe that's what Mr. Wilson was feeling when he spoke out of turn.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

So your argument is that the guy who goes to political rallies with that sign, the guy who calls into talk radio, that's the typical Republican voter? That's the argument you're hanging your hat on? Do we really need to bother comparing the extreme elements of each party? It's an ugly thing no matter which end of the spectrum you're talking about. I don't doubt that there are plenty of people who hate Obama for no more reason than the color of his skin. The danger lies in assuming that anyone and everyone who opposes Obama's policies and goals must therefore have some culpability in that racism. I reject that notion entirely.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

All seniors who are black and raised in the South are not without swimming abilibies. I grew up in Vicksburg, MS. We had a YMCA. One of the life guards was Willie Chung. (If anyone out there is familiar with Willie, please give him a big shout out for me.) He taught me how to swim around age six. By the time I was 16, I became a Jr. lifeguard, teaching many young blacks to swim. During my highschool years, the City along with community efforts, built a pool for black kids. They did not pay for any help; therefore, parents collected the fee for swimming, ran the consession stands and did all of the cleaning. Once the schools were ordered to intergrate, all City pools were closed. The plumming systems were over taken by roots and debris from years of neglect. They became City eye-sores.

justjess

Sep 18 2009

good truth telling, justjess. I enjoy your comments. Seems the headway you were making there was stymied by the backlash to forced integration. The film I worked on is called Parting the Waters - they did some filming at a location in Mississippi where in 2008 they were re-opening a pool to the community that had been filled in with dirt all these years. (http://www.dotellproductions.com) if anyone is interested.

Izzy

Sep 18 2009

Mgeo, there wasn't "the guy" who brought the "buried with Kennedy" signs; a major pro-life organization printed and distributed them at the rally. I linked a video earlier in the week that contained footage of all sorts of different people carrying those signs. What's more shocking than the people carrying them, though -- there are morons in every crowd -- is that I've heard so few Republicans (none, in fact) speak out against those signs. In fact, the ones I have heard from, including yourself, are trying to defend them or downplay them. Same goes for violence done by pro-"life" vigilantes. Other than initial outrage by McCain and others in Congress, the same has gone for Joe Wilson. What is so hard about reaching down, grabbing your you-know-whats and speaking out against disgusting actions by members of your own party?!? I know from experience that there is nothing difficult about opening my mouth and criticizing nutballs or wingnuts of any party. Why are y'all making excuses for the dangerous, hate-filled contingent that has taken over your party!?! I'll never understand it.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

Come on, Donna...did you read my post? Would you tell me where I defended those people? Don't bother -- I'll quote myself: "Do we really need to bother comparing the extreme elements of each party? It's an ugly thing no matter which end of the spectrum you're talking about." Is that an excuse? Openly recognizing that the attitude referenced there is extremist and ugly? You can make claims that they have "taken over" the Republican Party, but saying it doesn't make it so. I don't know who you've been talking to that supports the murder of abortionists, but it's not me and it's not the majority of the Republican Party. You don't like it when conservatives paint liberals or left-wingers as secret socialists or communists -- why do you insist on identifying the conservative movement with its most radical, extreme elements? I appreciate the discussion, but it's reached the point where it honestly doesn't matter what a right-winger says or how he says it -- on this site, it's going to be interpreted in the worst possible light. Vast, unfounded generalizations about the inner motivations and psychology of conservatives are allowed to go on unchecked and unchallenged. Any opposition to Obama is chalked up to racism, and somehow the burden of proof is on the conservative to demonstrate that it's NOT all racism. If you are simply trying to provide a view that challenges what you perceive to be an overly conservative Clarion-Ledger (I wouldn't know; I don't read it anymore), then fine, but be honest about it. What's the point in pretending that conservative views can be presented and respected on this site?

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

Izzy, Great work. Thanks for the interesting link on "Parting the Waters." It never dawned on me about the loss of others who came after my generation. For the most part, they were unable to swim during the Summer months. Jackson was no exception to this situation. When my husband (now deceased) moved to Jackson, there were no public pools: All were closed as Walt reported. A few of the more affluent blacks had begun to build pools at their homes. Farish St. Y was the only pool opened to blacks and many parents feared sending their children because of crowding.

justjess

Sep 18 2009

I read your post exactly, mgeo. And I read your statement about "both extremes" -- leading one to wonder what you think is the opposite of the wingnut teabaggers with their "bury with Kennedy" signs. Regardless, though, your posts don't match that statement. You aren't blasting the extremists in your own party; you're giving lip service to not liking extremists on "either side." Hint: People who have no problem with their own extremists *always* say that -- the whole "everyone does it" meme. The problem is that it's meaningless. I don't feel like I have to mention a Republican when I blast a Democrat when I don't something stupid. I have no need to water down my criticism because I am a slave to no party, and I don't make excuses for them. I draw my conclusions based on individuals, facts and what I consider my personal morality, which applies regardless to the party someone follows. Everytime I see the "both sides do it" excuse, I simply roll my eyes. Sound and fury ...

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

Donna- what good is it going to do to blast extremist in either party? It not going make them go away, is it? They still gonna be there.

BubbaT

Sep 18 2009

Recognizing that both sides do it isn't making an excuse. You can't legislate away bad worldviews, or shame them into nonexistence. Right wing extremists and left wing extremists will continue to persist, in public or in private, regardless. Again, it's tiring and not a little irritating to constantly have the conservative view psychologically dissected. How do you know I'm paying lip service to it? How dare you make that assumption? I'm deeply angered and offended by those who take the justice of the state and the justice of God into their own hands by killing abortionists; it offends me as a Christian and as a human being, and it angers me that the name of Christ is attached in any way to such a perverse, skewed view of justice. But ultimately, I shouldn't have to write all that just to make you believe me; I told you I found both extremes of the spectrum to be ugly, and I shouldn't have my stated opinion second-guessed as if you have some personal insight into my psychology. I've read and re-read your last post several times over now while composing my reply -- and I'm honestly quite astonished. What a bunch of self-righteous drivel. You can roll your eyes in superiority till the cows come home. You can brag about being a slave to no party. It doesn't change the facts. Extremism exists on both sides of the aisle, and "blasting" them on blogs does nothing. Arrest the ones that break the law, ignore the rest of them, and work on the actual issues in a constructive way. Or, just continue on your merry way here in your little corner of the internet. I'm sure the choir is enjoying the sermon.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

Right, Bubba. That was the thinking back in Neshoba County. Why bother speaking out against the Klan? The problem is that the mainstream of the Republican Party these days is becoming infected with wingnuttery, pushed by irresponsible info-tainment "journalists." Why speak out? Because they. are. dangerous. Someone is going to get killed, and a whole bunch of defensive party types are going to have blood on their hands because they didn't speak out while they had the chance. Staying quiet about extremism never works because it allows it to seep into the uninformed parts of the mainstream. Our country is filled with that evidence.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

I answered your question earlier Donna when I said , more or less, if the courting, pandering to and idolizing of extremists and racists is the only reason you're in power, and I add now, the only way you can get back in power, you don't blast them. They're your ticket. You ignore them publicly and reward them secretly. Bubba, Myeo and all the rest have ben schooled. I still have hope for Bubba though. We will win him over eventually! LOL. Bubba blasting them might show you don't agree with them and don't want their evil assistance. Brother Baquan Barry is no dummy. He knows if he cops out to racism, Limpbaugh would be so excited that he would finally get the lil man to salute. He, Beck, Coulter, Steele and the rest of those awful republicans would then be able to say we told y'all all blacks are alike, when the pressure is on they run and scream racism. Obama will not supply them this opportunity and blow his chance of changing America. We need this health plan and everything else he plans to bring. God is with him and he will succeed, no matter Crock News or the GOP.

Walt

Sep 18 2009

It tickles me, mgeo, that you sit there under your anonymous name declaring that I am "self-righteous" because I don't agree with your proclamations and defensiveness of the extremism taking over your party. Do you seriously think such an insult matters a whit to me? ;-) Of course there are extremists on "both sides" -- or, more accurately, on many sides because there are more than two, you know. (Although that's a common error made by partisans for obvious reasons.) In the past, the Democratic Party has been eaten up by extremist, especally in the South. The only way that more moderate Dems could expel them was by, well, expelling their asses, and daring to go another direction. The old Republican Party sold out and took in the extremists ... starting in the 1960s. Them chickens are now coming to roost for the GOP. Y'all got some choices to make. In today's climate, Democrats in general are rejecting extremists or just ignoring them outright (and don't try the sleight of hand that Obama is the opposite of a teabagger. Nader isn't even that far opposite of those goobers to count. I have kicked some folks off this site over the years who would count). That may change in the future, and we should all be there to beat the shit out of the Dem Party when it does. But for now, it's the GOP that is being infected with extremists, bizarrely emboldened by Palin et al. And it's up to y'all to speak up about them. I'm sure that's a message you don't want to hear, but that's your problem, not mine. I grew up vowing I would never pull punches on dangerous extremism that tries to dominate my state. Not about to start now when they're really starting to spin out of control. Say what you want abuot me; it's all been said. Yawn. Sticks and stones, and all that jazz.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

Yeah, Walt, I like Bubba myself. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

We need this health plan and everything else he plans to bring. God is with him and he will succeed, no matter Crock News or the GOP. I agree, Walt. I got a feeling about this one. Put another way, I believe the Good Lord is looking out for us. That arc of history Dr. King liked to talk about is bending our direction. And that's sure to bring the worst ugliness to the surface, so we know where it lives. And that's ultimately a good thing.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

By the way, Steele isn't black; he, Keyes and Blackwell are colored dudes.

Walt

Sep 18 2009

Donna- how is speaking out gonna stop somebody from killing someone? Words ain't bulletproof, I not saying they should not speak out just that no matter if the do, nutcase are nutcase they gonna do what they want anyway.

BubbaT

Sep 18 2009

The danger lies in assuming that anyone and everyone who opposes Obama's policies and goals must therefore have some culpability in that racism No one (or at least I'm not) saying that simply disagreeing with Obama is equal to racism. I'm black and I don't 100% agree with everything he's done so far. Maybe I'm hating the white part about him LOL. But there is absolutely no denial that race plays a certain factor in the vitriolic anger towards him. It's high time, too, that the Republican Party--particularly the sane few that are left--start speaking out against this silliness before more people get hurt or even killed.

golden eagle

Sep 18 2009

Donna- how is speaking out gonna stop somebody from killing someone? Bubba, is that a real question!? Do you understand how many wingnut killers are emboldened by "mainstream" fear? Our state's history is simply filled with this problem. Had more people had the balls to speak up in my hometown about how the racist rhetoric was wrong, that mob never would have come together as it did. Maybe one guy would have tried something, but Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner could be alive today if people I knew had taken a stand.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

Golden, what's frustrating no end is that all the people getting wigged out about people pointing out the racism of many (not all) Obama opponents are actually calling him "racist" themselves. It's as if they've tried to take back the "racist" label and turn it on other people. Talk about doth protesting too much.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

And the comment about Steele, Keyes, and Blackwell being "colored dudes" and not truly black goes unchallenged. Can you imagine if after Jimmy Carter's comments, I had posted that Carter was not truly white, he was just a guy with pale skin? You'd be calling me an extremist and kicking me off the site.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

No, I would probably be telling you that you were proving my point had you said that Carter isn't "white enough" because he is man enough to call out racism when he sees it. I'm not black. With the history of white supremacy in this country, it sure isn't up to a white woman to tell a black man that he is wrong to say that someone like Keyes or Steele is displaying Uncle Tom tendencies (or however he put it) because they are excusing away a political party that has used the southern strategy to get the racist vote for years. If you can't see the difference, that's too bad, but it's not my responsibility to try make every anonymous joe understand racial dynamics in America. There are many people who read and post here, though, who are perfectly willing to do some higher thinking on this issue, regardless of their race or upbringing. My comments are really more aimed at them. Whoops. There goes some more "self-righteous drivel." And, by the way, re your comment several up, you don't have to write or defend anything here. We don't put a vacuum on your monitor secretly to suck you into posting. Just ignore us if you don't like what's being said here. I think you're the one who thinks we're only preaching to an itsy-bitsy choir anyway. So why waste all your rage here? We're irrelevant.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

And the double standard rolls on. You're probably right, though. I normally enjoy these types of discussions more; I think it's the discrepancy between the claims made here and the reality that bother me most. It's not merely "higher thinking" (how lofty!) that you seek in these discussions; it's higher thinking of only one perspective. When men like Alan Keyes or Michael Steele are implied to be some kind of traitor to the black culture or cause, because they support a different political goal, and you as a moderating party in the discussion see that as a legitimate argument because of some twisted second-hand white guilt you seem to be carrying around...perhaps my thinking is too lowly for this site. I treat black people like I treat all people: they owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing, other than the courtesy and respect all men deserve as creatures made in the image of God. I have no doubt that parts or perhaps all of that view may be abhorrent to you. I'm OK with that. It's sad to me that for 8 years the Left whined about the White House stifling opposition and crowed about the dissenter being the "true patriot", and now when a congressman dares to yell two words at a President who was, at best, telling a half-truth, he isn't considered merely an idiot or hothead, but a racist and a symbol of "right-wing nutjobs" who have secretly taken over the Republican Party. Have fun with it. This is your time, after all. My hope is that after 4 years, the swing vote will have tired enough to put someone back in the White House who will do more than just talk about small government like W. did. Unlikely, though. History predicts more complacency and government intrusion and citizen dependency rather than less.

Mark Geoffriau

Sep 18 2009

Conservatives should simply ask themselves why their mainstream message is the same as some of these domestic terrorist or others than go on rampages. Go to a Mississippi chat room or somewhere people talk annonymously and you will be surprised at the racist language that is freely thrown around. These people represent real people and they have political positions. If you want to be honest, ask yourself where they feel the most at home and if that is where you are why would you want to be there?

Goldenae

Sep 18 2009

Mgeo, why not work harder at supporting your own opinion rather than putting trying to speak for other people? You've given no support whatsoever that the "claims made here and the reality" differ. You seem to think that because you say it, da-dum, it's true. Work a little harder. It's really OK that others don't agree with you, no? It's not personal, so no need to take it as such. As for Steele et al: If you'd pay closer attention, you'd find that many people are not pleased with these gentlemen because they are not speaking out against race-baiting in their party, not because they disagree with specifics on the health-care plan. Hey, even Ken Mehlman apologized for the GOP's use of the southern strategy, and he's white. Many people of all races are sick and tired of being sick and tired of race-baiting, and many of us vowed we wouldn't repeat what our families did back when. If I were here in the '60s, I would hope that I would have had the nerve to speak out against the African Americans who helped the Citizens Council and the Klan, too -- although then it could've gotten me killed. It's hard to imagine anyone's excuse today for not speaking out against the hatefulness. It's not merely "higher thinking" (how lofty!) that you seek in these discussions; it's higher thinking of only one perspective. That's a funny statement, even though predictable after your earlier statement. I guess you missed the point that the "higher thinking" is anything above and beyond the simplistic status quo thinking that has gripped our state for so long. Isn't this something we should all aspire to? Even Mississippians? You don't have to appreciate that many people of all political persuasions are seeking to have a better level of dialogue, but belittling it just makes you sound small. Why lower yourself like that? As for the second part of that statement, you're simply wrong. We're not seeking one perspective; we are seeking to provide alternatives to the one perspective that pretty much always has drowned out dissent or even an attempt at devil's advocacy for that matter. We seek a wide variety of perspectives -- based on fact, civility and respect for "the other." I simply don't operate in a place where I can comprehend (a) defending what one party/ideologue says just because they say it or (b) shooting down what one party/ideologue says just because they say it. The inevitable response from the self-same ideologues is to scream that we don't want to allow another perspective (theirs). They're half right: We don't allow that same old, majority-culture, self-righteous, privileged perspective to shut down all other conversation as it's used to doing in our state or beyond. That happens on other sites and blogs in the area, but not on this one. That is, there is plenty of your opinion out there right now to go around, especially in our state and those nearby. I'm sorry to tell you that the so-far-loudest point of view isn't going to drown out the rest of us, by belittlement or anything else. So might as well not try. So my advice is: Stop trying to attack the messenger or the forum. Come here and offer intelligent facts to debate. I could shoot down Obama's health-insurance plan in a debate better than just about anybody I've heard attacking it, if I wanted to just have a healthy debate without bringing my spiritual beliefs to bear on the subject. It boggles the mind what passes for discourse these days. Too often: defensiveness and whining, frankly. And way too many lies and myths passed on by people who aren't bothering to even figure out what the arguments could be if they put aside the defensiveness and tried thinking for themselves. Starting with civil and fact-based.

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2009

Now, all that said, Walt, please rein in your personal attacks. You know as well as I do that you have the smarts to say what you're saying in a more civil, intelligent way. Instead of the attacks on Steele, etc., why don't you take the time to explain why you believe the way you do, as you have in the past? Join those of us here who are trying to further the dialogue. If we want civility in public discourse, we need to set the example. It's hard for me to watch the race-baiting, too, but doing it back is not going to change anything -- or make the climate for President Obama any safer out there. Let's honor him by taking the dialogue to a higher plane, regardless of our point of view. Yes, call out the offensiveness, but don't use this site to be offensive in return. Solves nothing, and can fuel more ugliness.

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2009

I linked this piece already, but I really recommend it to folks who are interested in honest dialog about the question of race being brought up now by mainstream and local media: Media Notice An Elephant in the Room "Historically, race is discussed [in the public sphere] in subtle ways – in terms of economic threats or moral deficiencies or health threats," says Shah, who teaches a class on mass media and minorities. In his view, underlying racial bias gets revealed when two or more ideas come together at the same moment and are connected rhetorically. In this case, the first black chief executive is also the first in modern history to have the legality of his presidency questioned. Asserting the Obama administration is unconstitutional because he was born in Kenya is "not quite" overt racism, "but it's close," Shah says – a revealing confluence of concepts. "Then this Wilson incident comes along, and the commentators come along and say, 'Race might be a factor,'" he notes. "All of a sudden, it's out in the open." The story is a very reasonable treatment of whether or not race is a factor in the way Obama is being treated (largely) by the (fringe + Fox) Right. It's ridiculous on the face of it to say that race is having no effect...but even President Carter's statement can come off as overblown, and it's instructive to note that the White House continues to downplay the connection. Most of all I love the call to action in the story -- we need to talk about this stuff, on a local level, even when it makes folks uncomfortable. That's the only way we're going to get past it. Media Notice An Elephant in the Room On a related note, I often think about this short speech from Edward James Olmos -- it just pops into my head at unexpected moments. ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFDrOxWCXY I could be wrong, but his point feels like a great jumping off point for the discussion, as it both recognizes the history of the issue (how we got here) and the potential we have in the future to get past it.

Todd Stauffer

Sep 19 2009

It seems recently I offended at least one person during some of my posts. Surely, it was accidental and not purposeful as imagined. It was assumed I called Steele and Keyes Uncle Toms. No, I didn't, because as I understand the concept, Uncle Toms live among the victims, go to meeting with them, study the same issues as they do, plead the same causes, claim the same pain, and pretend to be one of the victims seeking justice and equality as a group, but then turn on the victims and provide the enemy with the intentions, desires and goals of the victims. So far as I know, neither Keyes nor Steele claims any pain of the victims, meet with the victims, live among the victims, pretend to be one of the victims, et al. I've never seen or heard of either being anywhere near most of us. I apologize to any one out there who fits the description of an Uncle Tom. I know you don't want me lumping errroneously those two gentlemen with you. I called them Colored because I thought "colored" was an endearing term used by unreconstructed whites or republicans to describe good blacks or blacks who acted right according to that class of people. I apologize for calling those gentlemen anything but the good black republicans they are. Indeed they are good black republicans. I know the GOP is very glad to have them. They are as rare as a rose in winter. It's indeed noble to make an effort to get me to correct myself about those two gentlemen. It's also noble to listen to Steele when he challenges Rush about racism or other misdeeds instead of making Steele apologize and bow to Rush at the far right's demands. As for Keyes, what can I say about him, other than he has run for everything; yet, not many people, even republicans, seem to trust him enough to vote him into office. I will say, personally, however, as to Steele and Keyes both, that if I'm trapped in an elevator or doorless quarter with them, an alligator, a bear and a gun with only 2 bullets, I'm not shooting the alligator and bear. LOL.

Walt

Sep 21 2009

Of course, David Brooks says it's not about race, so it must not be.

DonnaLadd

Sep 22 2009