When BO announced that he was going to visit Iraq… I thought it would be great if the troops would shun him and show their true feelings. I assumed this would be muted since the military brass would not like any disruptive scenes or any disrespect shown to BO.
However, I looked at a video (you can find many other videos) of the recent trip and was NOT surprised to see mainly black soldiers cheering. Blacks make up approximately 20% of the military but viewing this video clearly shows an overwhelming majority of black soldiers in attendance.
Now I’m sure there are some good explanations, like maybe the white soldiers couldn’t get into the packed gymnasium or maybe they never got the memo about BO visiting… or maybe BO is disliked by the white soldiers. The few white soldiers in attendance do not look very happy.
So, my question to anyone listening is why weren’t there more white soldiers in attendance for BO’s visit? Also, why hasn’t the “unbiased” media picked up on this very obvious fact… would it look/sound bad?
Would they cheer more for a guy promising to get them home soon or for a guy who doesn’t give a damn about them (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.)? I’m no psychology major, but I bet a lot of those guys (especially if they’ve done multiple tours) are getting a little sick of Iraq, and I’ll wager that more than a few of them are all not that happy with your little draft-dodger from Crawford (though they might be court-martialed for ever openly expressing criticism of him).
I’ll be blamed for anecdotal evidence but I know 6 people who have served or who are serving over in Iraq and they are doing so happily. I’m sure there are people who don’t want to be there and I’m sure hardly anybody “wants” to be there, but they are doing so now and signing up for going back.
<
p>Yes, if John McCain visited Iraq the troops would swarm him with support. I would guess the overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq will vote for JM.
<
p>This is not Viet Nam and the feelings of the soldiers is not like that war either.
and gone back to iraq not because they give a damn about the military, but because they’re so screwed up by the experience that they don’t know how to control themselves back in regular society. the military seems to do little or nothing to help people readjust to civilian life.
<
p>as for soldiers swarming around mcsame, i just picture yet another plastic turkey being “served” to our brave soldiers by yet another guy who has voted to break the geneva conventions, thus maximizing the possibility that the soldiers served plastic photo op food will be tortured if captured by an enemy. so if they swarm him, the question will remain, to what end? better check that they have plastic cutlery to go with that fake turkey.
I have no idea why the first Black presidential nominee in the history of the United States (in which, until 40 years ago, apartheid was the law of the land and in many areas it was basically legal to murder and rape Black people) would be so appealing to Black Americans. This must be evidence of Barack rallying his forces for the 2009 enslavement of Whitey. Or maybe the White soldiers just don’t like basketball?
<
p>You say, “The few white soldiers in attendance do not look very happy” – what, are you a mind reader now? They looked happy to me. None of them appeared unhappy.
<
p>Also interesting to note, if the military hates Obama so much, that “[a}mong people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000.” I’m sure that extra $327K came only from Black soldiers.
<
p>And what’s with McCain and White people? This photo was taken at Boston’s Faneuil Hall. White people make up 50% of the city, but, judging from this one random photo (because these brief snapshots tell the whole story), 100% of the people cheering on McCain were White! Why can’t John McCain only get White people to show up at his rallies? Very suspicious indeed.
<
p>
<
p>Seriously, though, why don’t you just come out and say what you are dancing around saying? You saw a video of Obama in Iraq and most of the soldiers were Black – so what? Why do you need an explanation? Does this bother you?
You can try all you want but the fact is the white soldiers serving in the war do not want BO to be President and told him so by avoiding his visit.
<
p>Neither one of can read minds seeing either happy or unhappy so I will retract my observations, but I’ll bet I’m right.
<
p>And as for McCain and white people, to a degree I agree with you. Black people are voting along color lines. I know when white people vote this way they are being racist bigots, but black people doing this are merely supporting an historic event (although when black people do this in other races such as in Congress it isn’t historic, it’s just ok). Remember BO taking 95+% of some black populations in primaries… did they all just happen to agree with him on issues?
<
p>You can avoid this issue if you want but it is real. It’s a little ironic in that when BO addressed the Rev Wright issue initially (before he threw him under the bus), he commented how we needed to talk about race issues and stop looking the other way, both for blacks and whites. The unfortunate thing is people are so sensitive and testy about race that just talking about it or asking questions gets you labeled a racist. Why can’t we have a dialogue? Why can’t I ask a simple question like “why are so many basketball players black” without being attacked? And I am all in favor people asking me questions about their concerns.
<
p>Maybe the answer to my questions about BO in Kuwait is simply “the white majority of soldiers don’t like BO” or “maybe they felt pressure not to attend form their firends/commanders” or maybe the black soldiers really did get in line first to see BO in person. I don’t know but I do know the percentages of the crowd where not representative of the makeup of the soldiers stationed there.
<
p>And now you are hot-wired into the minds of “the white soldiers” currently in Afghanistan and Iraq? How does that work?
<
p>Have you ever served in the military? I’m curious because if you had there should be evidence somewhere in your comments that you understand that many enlisted “white” soldiers serve under “black” NCOs. They do so with respect and professionalism. I know this white female soldier did when she was doing her Army gig. All of my commanding NCOs were black. Hmmm. So white soldiers can deal with black officers and NCOs but can’t deal with a black president? This is patently ridiculous. White soldiers had no use for Colin Powell either, I suppose, because he, too, is black?
<
p>Your inference is bigoted bullshit. Why you feel empowered to speak on behalf of “the white soldiers” is beyond comprehension. Your hubris is laughable, which is why, I suppose, no one but me has bothered to respond.
but I think you need to be more open minded.
<
p>I have served in the military (US Navy) but that is immaterial to the issue since anyone is open to talk about this issue. You may also notice I did NOT make any racist remarks. Nor did I say ANYTHING about white soldiers who do not want to serve under a black officer. Like I tried to say, but your anger probably blinded you… we need to discuss issues like this and not try to SHUT PEOPLE DOWN just because they may say something you don’t like or is controversial. When the civil rights movement happened in the 60’s, people tried to shut them down too because they didn’t want to hear it. And I never said white soldiers can’t “deal” with black NCOs and/or Officers. Don’t put words in my mouth to make your arguments stronger.
<
p>I stand by everything I said. If you have problems with what I said (don’t talk about inferences), then take me up on them… or don’t bother responding in the future.
<
p>I do not feel empowered to speak for “the white soldiers” but it sounds like you are empowered to speak for anyone, black or white, male or female who has served, for any color officer.
<
p>BTW, you had zero explanation for the overwhelming black turnout for BO in Kuwait.
Your own words, fortunately, speak rather clearly for you even if you try to distance yourself from them in retrospect.
<
p>Everyone here can read.
<
p>
<
p>Clearly, though, you apparently do feel empowered to speak on behalf of “the white soldiers” as evidenced by these words:
<
p>
<
p>You wrote them, you articulated a point of view you stated was factual on behalf of white soldiers.
<
p>I, on the other hand, am empowered to speak only on my behalf, as you can clearly see from what I actually wrote. Given your sweeping generalization, I offer myself as an exceptional example to your “fact[ual]” statement.
<
p>As for your “overwhelming” turnout, I’m afraid nothing can be inferred from that. You know nothing about the people who attended, nothing about who decided not to attend, and nothing about the reasons for their decisions. Again, only you have invested in your crystal ball. The rest of us refrain, generally, from mind-reading and wholesale presumptions but are rather inclined to objecting when others indulge.
<
p>Because when I was reading many of the comments about the “Why Do Boston Police Officers Keep Killing Inncocent People?” there certainly seemed like people were “mind-reading” about the BPD and there were plenty of “wholesale presumptions”. But that’s ok because people were passionate and had opinions.
<
p> If we have to wait for empirical data to back up every word we say, then wake me when the boredom starts killing people.
<
p>
<
p>Nor do you… THAT is why I was asking for someone else’s OPINION instead of getting into a mental masturbation about what the rules are for people talking.
<
p>I also assume you will hold every blogger on this site to your standard that nothing will be discussed or opined about unless the blogger knows “all the information” about the subject and can absolutely back everything up.
<
p>You’ve moved the goal posts, I notice, but that’s okay. No, I don’t really think mind-reading is okay at all on any thread. Pretty simple stuff. But I’m not omnipotent or sitting on this site 24/7. Are you?
<
p>
<
p>Data kills people? Facts are deadly? Okay, thanks. That explains a lot.
<
p>
<
p>You weren’t seeking opinion at all. You threw out some bait and hoped someone would bite. That’s okay; that’s what the internetz are all about, but let’s be honest about it. You want to fight, to argue, and, I would argue, to bully. You are not interested in why we think so few white soldiers were in the audience because you think you KNOW why so few white soldiers were there. You are interested in hoisting liberals on their own petards, as you view them. Talk about masturbation.
<
p>
<
p>No, I won’t hold every blogger to any standard. You happened to be here on a night when I am taking a break from work, so I’m holding you accountable for what you write. Take responsibility, there, big boy. You will not neuter me by imposing standards on my behavior. Nice try, though.
Now if you could only become one of the enlightened on the “right” I could rest.
<
p>Holding me to a higher standard than other bloggers here is ok with me too, just so long as I know. Fair and consistant treatment happens to be one of my hot buttons throughout my life (example – Firefighters must carry a 120 pound dummy down a ladder to qualify to be a firefighter, suddenly females want to be Firefighters so the weight of the dummy gets dropped to 60 pounds). It is probably why I am so against affirmative action. You phrased it “moving the goalposts” which really nails it.
<
p>I don’t want to argue about “facts” since this is so subjective. Facts are certainly facts and having them will surely make your position stronger. However, the issue turns into the analysis of those facts as well as “is something someone wrote on the internet really a fact, or does that writer/reporter “Chris Matthews” have an ax to grind. And remember there is a difference between correlation and causation. (example – “cutting” my grass does not “make” my grass keep growing…)
<
p>If it were simply about facts, why would anyone be talking, we would simply read the facts. I am a scientist and I “normally” work with data all day long. However, often times I have to hypothesize about things and see if the data supports it so I am well aware of the value of data. I get accused here of setting up straw-men often and sorry but that is how my mind works. I will also tell you the scientist who work “only” with data are not very pioneering.
<
p>If my manner of discussion is to throw bait out and see who bites, so what? I have been the “victim” of this type of debate and it forces you do think on your feet and be prepared. It’s exciting! And I completely believe that if you are not prepared to discuss something or get lulled into a corner, then you lose. So if I set up a scenario, figure a way out.
<
p>I support John McCain for President. If someone asks me to explain his position on the Iraqi war in light of the recent announcements by Bush, the Iraqi Government, BO then I better be ready to do some splainin. But I certainly won’t start crying and say “that’s not fair, that’s a trap question”.
<
p>And lastly, believe it or not, I have learned a few things on this page and hopefully will continue to learn. That to me defines intelligence.
Not possible, I’m afraid. So much of what the right believes offends me to the core. I do, however, appreciate the balls and brains compliment. Thanks.
<
p>
<
p>I, too, support fair and consistent treatment. If the standard for firefighters is to carry a 120-lb dummy down a ladder, then that standard should be in place for both males and females. I also believe the same physical fitness standards should be in place for both female and male soldiers. I support gender equity down the line. Affirmative action, though, is not the same animal, imho. I don’t believe AA is inherently unfair although aspects feel that way. In general I find the philosophy behind AA constructive and beneficial.
<
p>I guess my issue about facts is that, as simply a matter of vocabulary, the word “fact” is egregiously misused on a routine basis. Indeed, it was the use of the word “fact” in your comments last night that prompted my response. I agree that we are here to exchange ideas, but I also understand that we are not here to change people’s minds. We most of us come here, I think, to refine our own thinking at the expense of others.
<
p>As for people complaining about your style, I can only say that I think tblade is right in that there seems to be not only a subtext but also a tone that seems to preclude good-faith exchange. That may be a misperception on my part, so I’m not wedded to that assessment.
<
p>Never say never.
<
p>
<
p>Even BO mentioned in his speech about race that he could understand people being “angry” about AA. I read awhile ago that Americans are for “equal opportunity” and that Europeans are for “equal results” which explains the socialistic feelings they have. I am against AA but I am absolutely in favor of equal opportunity. As much as many on this page feel I am a racist, I would support any black person or other race who gets discriminated against on an individual basis (not class action). I believe in data and I believe that data can also used for interpolating and extrapolating results. I have been asking people about data on this page but I haven’t gotten much response (basketball, lawyers…).
<
p>
<
p>This is a general misuse of the word, which I will have to watch. I will often say “the fact of the matter is…” and in truth it will be only my opinion so I guess I need to stop writing/speaking in this manner.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe tblade is correct in his observation, but not in his conclusion. Let’s face it, I am in the minority here and I sometimes try to grab people’s attention to get a response. I know I can come across with a “OH ya, but how do you explain THIS…” attitude, but that’s my style. I do ask questions sometimes like a lawyer, already knowing the answer so I can jump all over the responder. But what is wrong with this? We are adults, not children whose feelings get hurt. I want people to challenge me the same way.
<
p>And I won’t lie that growing up in Dorchester didn’t sour me about groups of people. I’ll also admit to being a person who “discriminates” on many many levels. But I go by the definition – the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things. We all have the power of discrimination, which is essential for us to be able to make decisions and judgements about things.
In what world is this a “fact”? I must have missed the scientific poll that established this as “fact”.
<
p>Dude, +90% of Black people voted for Kerry. Black people vote Democratic and this was the first time a Black American was serious, broad-appealing candidate for a nomination. I’m shocked that Obama carried the black vote.
<
p>Remember that 93% of the Republican Party is White; why does the Republican Party only attract White people, hmmmm? Or is this White people registering along color lines and not wanting to join the party that has the support of “the Blacks”?
<
p>I’m all in favor of dialog, but I’ll be honest here. You say “asking questions gets you labeled a racist”, but it sounds as though your disguising your questions as statements to make a point and your conclusion is forgone. The tone of your post does not communicate earnest inquiry, it betrays vaguely racist sentiments and an agenda to take a swipe at certain people. I’m not making this judgement on this one post, but on what you’ve been saying since you registered in June. A few readers here (including myself) think that you have a certain dislike for Black and Jewish people.
<
p>If I’m wrong, so be it. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before; in fact I hope I’m wrong here. But if you don’t want people to think that you’re some sort of bigot or White Supremacist, you might want to engage in dialogue, focus less on race, and stop trying to hide the whole accusation/gotcha-thinly-disguised-as-a-question routine. The question why are Black soldiers over-represented in the Obama Iraq pictures? is a legitimate question. The way in which you posed the question was counter productive to dialogue and the conclusion that “White soldiers hate Obama” was pulled out of your ass.
<
p>You can claim the victim for “being attacked” when you “ask a simple question” all you want, but my answer was reflective of your post. The less attacking and accusatory your posts, the more cordial and substantive the responses.
You are correct that I cannot claim as “fact” anything about why the troops in attendance were primarily black. I cannot claim as fact almost anything about, just my opinion which is how I should have framed my remarks.
<
p>
<
p>This is a good question and something worth a blog of its own. My gut reaction (no facts) is that the old stereotype of “rich white Republicans” sitting home counting their gold ala “trading Places”… and every other chance Hollywood gets to try to paint it that way. Combined with the stereotypic “concerned liberal white Democrat” who is forgoing his rich Father’s wishes to serve the people and help poor folk… All this makes blacks feel the Dems are the party that will help them. Meanwhile I think the Dems have kept black people right where they are so they can get that 90% “locked” vote that you mentioned.
<
p>I wish many blacks could look into the true meaning or the Republican party (at least in my vision) which is totally color blind and wants people to succeed. Not from Government givaways which has created the poor lower class we have now, but by helping them work and “making” them work. Why work when you get it for free?
<
p>
<
p>Guilty as charged. I do have opinions on most things I discuss, don’t you? That doesn’t mean I can’t hear the argument from the other side. In fact, I often have answers to the argument from the other side but that’s constructive since it make the other side work harder until “sometimes” I see their/your view and learn.
<
p>
<
p>Now I admit I can be a little “snide” but if I wanted to have a bunch of people just agree with everything I said I’d be blogging on the REDMASSGROUP site. I still contend that I am not a racist. Maybe some genius reading this can tell me what a racist is and then I’ll compare myself. Do I hate black people… NO!! Are there things about the black community that annoy me… YES. But fill in the blank about most any community (black, Cathholic, NOW…) and I would answer the same. I love women for sure but I sure as shit have some issues with them.
<
p>
<
p>No, no, no… As I recall, I have mentioned Jewish people only one time. Again it was in hopes of opening dialogue about issues which make people’s anus tighten a little… Race, gender, ethnicity. I have tremendous respect for the nation of Israel and support them 100%. My question was something like “Relative to their percentage of the US Population, why are so many basketball players black, why are so many Doctors and Lawyers Jewish, why are Asian such good students, why are blacks commiting a higher rate of crimes than whites…”. If people need to see data on these comments I will search it out.
<
p>Now I am not complaining about these points… I was opening it up to questions. I was trying say there are aspects of our population/society which correlate with race, gender, religion… and I wanted to engage in dialogue about it. I don’t know the answer and I don’t even have a guess. If people have data to show these comments are wrong, then please show me the data. Nobody answered.
Nonsense. Simply nonsense.
<
p>Nixon’s “Southern strategy” was explicitly not colorblind and not in a nice way. Republican politicians mastered a coded means of talking about race — especially in the South — and appealing to white people brimming with racial resentment. In Whistling Past Dixie, Thomas F. Schaller makes this case quantitatively.
It might make more sense for you to wonder about how reasonable people (in this case Black people whom you tend to think are unreasonable) might have rejected the “true meaning of the Republican party”. Possibly they are better evaluators of their self-interest.
Wasn’t Lincoln a Republican too and some are comparing BO to Lincoln… a Republican. I mean if you are going 40 years, why not go 150?
<
p>
<
p>Surely you mean Democrats. Southern Democrats have been singing Dixie for many many decades.
<
p>
<
p>I never said they were unreasonable, just that they were being fooled by the media/press/hollywood…
<
p>
<
p>Possibly they are, and possibly they aren’t. Maybe “Free Cake & Ice Cream For Everyone!!!” will work for the Democratic party. This would not be the first time Carpetbaggers took advantage of a situation purely for political gains. People are free to do anything they want, but I mean this sincerely that IMO Republicans truly do want people to succeed in their individual goals of being successful, without any regard to race or gender. Black home ownership has hit an all-time high under George Bush and I (as a Republican) think that is a good thing. If you told me “anything” positive about blacks becoming successful or gaining wealth or getting healthier, I would say it’s a wonderful thing.
<
p>But I will also be honest and say there are many many outside factors which influence which party black people will vote for other than “self interest”.
It seems to me that you are just mocking. You want to ask the question about Black political affiliation in some kind of ahistorical vacuum tube where you get to decide what’s relevant and what’s not. That what you get to keep your — let me put this delicately — sentiments.
<
p>check out today’s post about John McCain’s latest gaffe. Please don’t think that mocking is a quality only I possess on this web site.
<
p>
<
p>Nonsense KBusch. I was saying the Republican party is a great party for blacks and I think there is too much outside influence “blinding” many black people from even looking at the party. I was not talking in any vacuum, but you took the giant leap to somehow bring back some ancient history of Richard Nixon from 40 years ago which IMO is completely irrelevant.
<
p>
<
p>Ah, ok I guess.
Attracted all the Dixiecrats beginning in 1968?
<
p>Opposed civil rights legislation almost every time it was proposed?
<
p>Included Jessie Helms?
<
p>Ran Willie Horton ads?
<
p>Has Reagan talk about “Welfare Queens”?
<
p>Is not supported by Blacks except a very tiny number?
<
p>I suggest that your views constitute a sort of veiled bigotry. You think you’re smarter than Blacks and know how they should vote.
<
p>You’re not smarter.
And stop pulling the “race card” out. Lets talk about the present and not “the good old days”. When was the Horton ad? When did Reagan talk about welfare queens? Can you “back up” your statement about Republicans opposing civil rights almost every time?
<
p>
<
p>Hello, this is exactly the point about this post, that the Republican party is a good place for blacks (and whites) but they are vastly underrepresented.
<
p>
<
p>I suggest you are talking out your ass. Again, any discussion about issues you feel uncomfortable with causes you to acuse me of BIGOTRY!! That’s it, I’ll call him a bigot and that will make him look bad. Call me a bigot as much as you want, it still won’t be true.
<
p>
<
p>Did I mention you are talking out your ass? Exactly where did I say I was “smarter” than blacks? Are you insinuating that my suggetion that the Republican party is a great party for blacks but they are heavily influenced by the media, by the movies, by Democratic politicians constitutes me calling myself smarter. So does the mere suggestion of anything to anyone mean you are saying they are stupid? Get real KBusch and keep on subject.
<
p>Both parties have some people we aren’t proud of (Helms/Byrd). But keeping the discussion about the people in “recent” history would be more productive.
I welcome you to attempt to understand them and deal with them after you do. It’s obtuse to say I’m playing “the race card” in a discussion of — race. I think you’re being willfully obtuse.
I am on my second marriage and have learned the hard way that issues which are openly discussed, even without an agreeable outcome are far more constructive than the issues which get repressed and avoided. These are the 100 pound pink elephants in the living room that everyone knows are there but nobody wants to talk about.
<
p>No, you are the person being obtuse. Only a simple minded person would attack the debater instead the debate. I’m sure many neophytes will resort to name calling when they can’t muster an intelligent response. Like my “hummingbird” metaphor, you want to dismiss the questions, blame the hummingbird or hope it just goes away.
<
p>I do hope someone will pick up the disciussion over time. Even Obama tried but failed to follow through with “walk the walk”. I could easily go to another web site with people who will engage in willful racially disparaging banter, but that is not what I wanted.
<
p>I’ll steal a line from “A few good men”, and add my twist…
<
p>
I want to play chess; you want to play go fish.
<
p>One thing one learns about communication in marriage is how to actively listen. Talking past one another is not enough.
So this is how you play chess…
<
p>I mention the Republican party is a great party for Blacks (and Whites) but that the buzz in the media/hollywood paints a bias picture.
<
p>You say my “views constitute a sort of veiled bigotry. You think you’re smarter than Blacks and know how they should vote.”
I say, “I wish many blacks could look into the true meaning or the Republican party (at least in my vision) which is totally color blind and wants people to succeed.”
<
p>And you say “… Possibly they are better evaluators of their self-interest.”
<
p>You don’t want play anything, you just want to shut me down. How can we talk about an issue (politicians, Police, Fire Fighters, media, Republicans…) if we have a built in answer of “Well, they are better evaluators of their own interests…” So what? Can’t we comment on it or discuss it? Think of it, someone says “Republicans should…” and I reply “Hey, don’t you think Republicans are better evaluators of their own self-interest”. Translation… SHUT UP.
<
p>I am not talking past you. In fact, I think I’m engaging you more than you are me since you are constantly trying to cut me off and label me a racist. That, is not constructive dialogue at all.
You’re saying that it’s all Hollywood and the media’s fault that African-Americans vote as they do.
<
p>Why just African-Americans? Why don’t Hollywood and the media “dupe” whites as well? Your account is extremely thin and, again, it somehow relies on Blacks being stupider than you who are not “duped” by Hollywood or the media. It’s also an account I’ve read no where, that lacks substantiation, and that you seem to have made up ad hoc. In chess, we ponder our moves; in go fish, we do not.
<
p>The appeal of liberalism is its focus on the common good. This does not appeal to you at all, so you have no way, apparently, of understanding why it appeals to others. You, like most conservatives, tend to focus on individual liberty. But why wouldn’t African-Americans, given their historical experience, prefer a perspective based on the common good?
<
p>I’m not asking you to shut up. I’m asking you to think through what I say. I’m asking you also to think through what you say. You don’t do much of either. In chess and in good discussions, one does both.
<
p>Not all their fault but I did say there were very influential.
<
p>
<
p>Never said other people were not affected, did I or were you “reading my mind”?
<
p>
<
p>They do, every chance they get no matter what color. Can you tell me the last movie with a “conservative” slant to it? Who is the nemisis of Michael Moore in Hollywood and what movies has he made? Let me ask you, can you agree that most corporate executives are painted as “evil” in the movies?
<
p>
<
p>There you go again, never said “stupider”. Ironic that you recently mentioned the “Willie Horton” ad from 20 years ago since you appear to using the same tactics by accusing me a racism.
<
p>Let me repeat this since your ears seem to be full of feces. I never said blacks were stupid not did I ever infer that. What I said was that Hollywood and the media portray Republicans like they are all money hungry “daddy Warbucks” type characters with little or no regard for blacks and the Democrats are all for black people. Then I said this propaganda has a heavy influence on blacks concerning what party they pick. Now, if you can connect the dots between me saying these things and me accusing blacks of being stupid, then please do.
Go fish!
I am not opposed to mocking in general. Nor have I said or even implied as much. For example, I am intentionally mocking McCain because his foreign affairs reputation exceeds his abilities. I make no bones about it and I plan to keep up a steady stream of anti-McCain material.
<
p>Enjoy!
<
p>You seem to want tblade and me to take you seriously in talking about politics and voting behavior. So I expect something more than just mockery from your responses. You know, thought and content. Generally in an academic environment, one attempts to refute the strongest statement of a position rather than take pot shots at individual phrases.
<
p>I’m not getting a serious response. So I’m concluding that these invitations to “discuss” stuff are simply a playground for you to say “neener-neener” or, worse, a way of exercising an elaborate defensive structure to protect an underlying bigotry.
Or whine about you mocking anyone. I’m an adult.
<
p>
<
p>Why not, I totally disagree with most things you say. But I still take you seriously even when you sound absurd.
<
p>
<
p>I will try, but if I feel like mocking you then take it like a man and stop moaning.
<
p>
<
p>Are we in an academic environment? If so, are you saying that the posts today about John McCain’s misspeaking (like BO did talking about the 57 states he visited) was an attempt to refute the “strongest” position rather than a “pot shot”? Yikes!
As if these threads are the same.
<
p>Obama referred to territories as states. Not a big deal. They sort of are like states. Iraq doesn’t border Pakistan. I can’t imagine making that mistake. It’s inconceivable. Who, “by mistake”, refers to the French-Polish border. Who?
<
p>So if you want to say nitwit things about race, go ahead. I won’t whine. I’ll just say you’re being a nitwit and a bigoted one at that.
Called one of their kids by another one of their kid’s names?
<
p>Forgotten someone’s name whom they know quite well?
<
p>Said “I could care less” when they meant to say “I couldn’t care less”.
<
p>People and especially candidates will say things by mistake, as they always have. With today’s 24 hour media coverage, they will get caught making even more mistakes. Let’s not present this as someone (McCain) who really doesn’t know the data as opposed to making a mis-speak mistake.
<
p>Okay Mr. Bush… I’m sorry I mean KBusch (my mistake).
There are mistakes people commonly make, like McCain’s mixing up Somalia and Sudan. That’s a little like mixing up children’s names. There are mistakes people only make if they’re ignorant: getting the borders wrong is one. That’s because we think of borders visually. No one, for example, mistakenly says “I left the car under the driveway” or “The flag is around the pole.” No one refers to the Mexican-Canadian border or the French-Polish border. When we think visually, we rarely err.
<
p>That’s why this is evidence that McCain doesn’t know his geography.
<
p>The Czechoslovakia issue, because it was repeated, embarrassing, and prominent, seems like a sign of mental softness. You only seem to be noticing the fact of the gaffe not its repetition or context. I can’t believe you’d overlook that because that would be obtuse — and you’re certainly not obtuse. However, remember he made this gaffe in front of the ambassador twice. That’s almost rude. Remember Bush called him on it. Think of embarrassing mistakes you’ve made. Do you repeat them? Do you repeat them three times? Ever?
<
p>The Sunni/Shia issue, though, is the most serious. That occurred in prepared remarks. It was worse than a gaffe: McCain revealed there that he’s really been faking it when it comes to foreign policy expertise. You can look forward to my blasting him on that any day now.
<
p>The “57 state” gaffe of which you are so fond is ridiculous by comparison. Obama meant 57 states and territories. I suppose running in the Puerto Rican primary is like running in the Wisconsin primary. He corrected himself subsequently, hasn’t repeated it, and there is no sign it indicates a lack of knowledge about U.S. geography.
<
p>Oh I see Doctor, very interesting. Is your degree in Psychiatry or Psychology? So if McCain or anyone mentions immigration and the Canadian-American border in a conversation but they really meant the Mexican-American border, they are ignorant?? Thanks Doc.
<
p>
<
p>How about when BO said “fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today” was that the ignorant kind (visual – dead heroes sitting in the audience) or the mixing kids names kind?
<
p>
<
p>And why he needs Romney as his VP. He got an A in geography.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe even dimensia. We should commit him to a “dangerousness hearing”. I honestly didn’t think there was a Czechoslovakia anymore.
<
p>
<
p>But maybe a little obese. Stop being so partisan, it’s boring and takes away from your credibility. Everything is always a little “different” to suit your arguments. Liberals love to bash those “mean Corporate Executives” but seriously, what would you call Michelle Obama’s position making $315,000 per year as VP or Public Relations of a Hospital? That is about as coporate ass protecting executive as you can get. And PLEASE (with sugar on it) don’t accuse me of being obtuse. I am commenting on your biased style of arguing (where similar details take on special meaning whether it’s about BO or JM) and not changing the subject in an obtuse manner.
<
p>
<
p>Did I mention I’ve been married twice?
<
p>
<
p>I know it was terrible. So anyway, speaking of prepared remarks. I heard a rumor that BO has refused to participate with McCain in the Town Hall debates. Now the rumor is that Obama sucks at speaking in anything BUT prepared remarks or reading speeches. McCain does this on a dialy basis. Of course there is risk for JM, he may make a mistake. Sort of like 2 divers where the first guy picks a very easy dive and does it perfectly (BO reading a speech) and the second guy tries a Flying forward one-and-a-half somersaults, pike but doesn’t do it perfectly (McCain’s gaffes). Too bad BO doesn’t have the guts to the open forum (high dive).
<
p>
<
p>Then maybe we should elect Dr. Brian Berry, one of the most renown Geography experts alive. Or Robert Denero maybe Morgan Freeman… more possibles candidates who can read a script perfectly. He made a mistake, plain and simple. Why can’t you acknowledge that both candidates simply make some mistakes? Oh no, BO’s are explainable but McCain’s are signs of mental softness. Paleeeease!!!!
Go fish!
No, but the only accounts you’ve given of Black voting behavior are based on presuming they are unreasonable. Really, you’re skimming not reading.
<
p>I’m at least thinking about what you’re saying, what it implies, and where it might fit in an historical context. So if this issue is so very important to you that you’ve consumed inches and inches of BMG column space on it, why don’t you come up with an account different from the extremely conventional one I just offered which you seem to think is hilariously anachronistic?
<
p>Or are you only capable of mocking?
<
p>And yes, the Democrats used to be the home of the Dixiecrats. The Republican Party used to be the home of African-Americans.
<
p>So?
<
p>What’s your point beyond “neener-neener”?
There’s something to be said about approaching an issue saying, “hey, I don’t know the answer, ergo I will withhold judgement – despite my suspicions and biases – until I find solid evidence to support a conclusion“.
<
p>And I’m not faulting you for having opinions, I’m faulting you for your complaint that you were being attacked for “just asking questions” when that is not the case. Feel free to take a controversial position, but don’t play naive like you didn’t know that your statement was intentionally provocative and bait for the types of responses you received. Say what you mean and mean what you say – and support what you say.
<
p>There’s nothing wrong with wondering why Black people support Obama so much or why the NBA is dominated by African Americans. But to quote a line from HL Mencken, “Explanations exist: they have existed for all times, for there is always an easy solution to every problem – neat, plausible and wrong.” I would say that the answers to these questions that you posed aren’t as neat and easy as Right Wing radio and Right Wing catch-phrases boil them down to be; in the long run, “what part of illegal don’t immigrants understand” is about as substantive and insightful as Kanye West saying “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people”. Even if in the short-term there is truth in such statements and one agrees with such slogans, it does nothing to address the heart of the issues being debated and it has never persuaded people to change their position.
<
p>If you want to start an enquiry to these topics, even if you do have the forgone conclusions and personal biases we all have, drop the insinuations of racist motives of Obama supporters and the heavy-handed condescension about racial bias and approach the topic with interest to finding the answer and an open mind to alternative points of view. You may indeed be open-minded, but your posts do not communicate that, and all we readers have to go on is how you present your thoughts in writing.
<
p>If you do present controversial conclusions, show your work. I could hypothetically say something like “the GOP is only for White people”. To which you could counter, “Untrue! I have Latino, Black and Asian friends that are registered Republicans. The GOP is diverse”. Both of our statements are essentially worthless, changes no one’s minds, and ends the discussion in stalemate. Yet, by presenting the Gallop Poll above that showed that 93% of Republicans are White, I may not have settled the debate, but I’ve advanced the dialog and produced a constructive point for both sides to chew on.
<
p>It may be fact that most White soldiers dislike Obama. Personally, I suspect this is not the case and I cite the military donations as evidence, but I’m willing to be agnostic on the issue and say “I don’t know what percentage of White soldiers have a favorable opinion of Senator Obama”. I’m curious as to what the data would say on this issue and will withhold further judgement until I see more evidence either way.
<
p>John, I stand by my judgement that you have a racial bias that bleeds into your discussions here, and I find many of your conclusions to be unsupported by fact. But it is obvious you have a brain in your head and at times you argue with lucidity. I think most good points, questions and perspectives that you introduce are obfuscated by GOP talking points and baseless statements intended to bait and provoke. I think you can get much more out of BMG by making stylistic adjustments and putting more thought into the way you approach discourse. That’s assuming that you want more from your participation here than just flame wars and pissing matches.
<
p>How do we begin a dialogue about things until we ackowledge the truth? Who said anything about neat simple answers? If it were that simple, we’d already have the answers. But I do know we won’t “ever” get the answers until we talk about it. And when we agree to discuss them, then we can offer answers, and then those answers can be debated until we get down to the true causes. That is the typical drive of science. But if someone asked “why do Hummingbirds live mainly in warmer climates” and before anyone answered the questioner was attacked with “Who cares why” or “You hate Hummingbirds” or “Hummingbirds are everywhere, you just don’t want to see them…” then nobody would ever ask the question.
<
p>
<
p>We are NOT all created equal, even though it sounds good in speeches. In some cases we have huge cultural differences, in other cases we have physical differences and maybe we have spiritual differences. Who was the last white guy to win an Olympic sprinting event or the Boston Marathon? Is this due to Racial Discrimination? Is me asking this question some coded form of bigotry? NO to both questions.
<
p>For years the medical industry did research on mainly white people/patients. Maybe is was racial discrimination, maybe it was eliminating a possible variable or maybe it was an oversight. But the fact of the matter is we now know that blacks and whites are not the same when it comes to genetic make-up, metabolism, diseases… Blacks may be more susceptible to ailments or may react differently to some drugs than whites. Nothing is definitive but… We have to acknowledge these facts so that we can investigate what is different and then treat the diseases properly. We have similar differences within each race (including whites) with some drugs working better for sub-populations hence “personalized medicine” is upon us.
<
p>I want a dialogue to admit there is differences in our society demonstrated by some of these examples (Basketball..) and let’s discuss them. No preconceived notions or answers.
<
p>
<
p>Ok, but I think I am no different than most people. I mean if you read post about George Bush, do you pick up some “attitude” in those posts, often times outright attacks (stupid, dope, ignorant, stubborn…)? I guess I’m also sensitive to the past when people compained about racial bias (against blacks) and would simply point to numbers as proof. They would point to a 100% white US Senate and say this was a clear indication of Racial Bias or Boston Public School graduation statistics… where “numbers” proved racial discrimination. And now I’m using it in the other direction and seeing if it flys. Hopefully the result will be the racial makeup of any group, company, neighboorhood… is meaningless and not clear cases of Racial Discrimination. Can we agree to this?
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know either since I have no data. I did find some data that said the military people gave more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate but I certainly wouldn’t offer that proof any anything. So… on this I have to say I have nothing but gut feelings.
<
p>
<
p>It is a free world. I would just hope that bloggers like yourself would hold me to no higher of a standard than they do for every other issue and every other blogger.
<
p>
<
p>Well I can disagree with everything you are saying, but I am my own person and not just a Republican head.
<
p>
<
p>The only benefit to pissing matches is people are more real and less superficial. I remember how Michael Richards and Mel Gibson were in hot water for their outbursts, neither one of which would probably have happened unless they got drunk or very pissed off. Some say they were finally being honest. Hopefully I get honest feedback from people because I tick them off a little. I’ll continue to “walk the line” by being controversial but civil.
Who can forget this classic bit of wing-nuttery?
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showD…
<
p>A friend of mine who is a prison guard told me if I ever get arrested (no comments please), I should immediately declare my religion as Jewish since at his prison, Jewish inmates gets superb food brought in from outside the prison. The lowly Christians must eat the slop prepared in-house.
This is a little like last week’s breakfast. as you keep pushing the same lines. Let me take up a couple points.
<
p>Voting along racial lines. African-Americans have been one of the very most loyal groups of Democratic voters for a very long time. So if Obama is getting a larger percentage of such voters than say Dukakis, Mondale, or Kerry, then one conclusion is that Black conservatives are voting for Obama along racial lines. Why would Black conservatives support Obama? Interesting question that. I don’t have a clue. Have you looked into it?
<
p>Meaning of White unanimity You frequently tell us that we’d be all up in a rage if Whites voted 100% for something. However, this is purely hypothetical. In modern America, it’s hard to think of an issue or candidate that Whites would support 100% without everyone supporting the issue or candidate 100%. Further, under such a condition, one would be surprised to find liberals outraged because, well, many white liberals would be among the 100% — as would most everyone else.
<
p>I think your hypothetical is supposed to remind us of the post-Reconstruction South, but we don’t live in that time.
I think a few of them are stifling yawns
and the video showed a lot of women on the scene when they only make up about 15% of active duty soldiers, what would the message be?
<
p>Put another way, if I were in Iraq and had a chance to meet BHO in that scene, and a black soldier asked if we could switch out so he could go and I cover his duty, I’d switch out with him in a heartbeat. Same with a female soldier were HRC the nominee. What does that make me?
but they filled the gym with women then my conclusion would be that the men there had little to no interest seeing/hearing/cheering Clinton.
A few days ago you complained about a G8 photo showing only one woman (German Chancellor Angela Merkel) among what is otherwise the boys’ club of G8 top officers. Now you’re over-analysing the racial makeup of a video featuring Obama visiting our troops. Maybe nobody’s touched these stories because they are meaningless. They are certainly meaningless to me. If anything we’ve had too much of that kind of commentary. The primary season featured ad nauseum discussions about whites rejecting the black candidate, men rejecting the female candidate, etc. File under “much ado about nothing”!
Why am I “over” analyzing instead of just analyzing? We disagree because I think they are stories. Just the other day I was attacked numerous times because of my comments about us always having to copy the “rest of the developed world”. I hate when people throw that at us (since we are the crown jewel of the “rest of the world”. My comments about the g8 summit were more where are all the critics who always say we should be more like the “rest of the developed world” and yet there was only a single woman with all the rest men.
<
p>And I think ignoring the overwhelming black majority of soldiers at BO’s event is also newsworthy, certainly for the candidate’s election teams. Just as it is when they analyze the voting patterns of states. If John McCain went to Iraq and he filled a gym with supporters cheering him on, giving the impression that the soldiers loved him. But then we found out his team filled the place with Arizona soldiers only, I think this would be newsworthy too.
<
p>Whatever.
What are the different plans for Iraq between the two candidates and how have voting records demonstrated support for our troops? The military has been integrated longer than just about anything else.
<
p>What are the policies, rather than gender, of the various G8 leaders, especially our own President, and what do they mean for us? We should decided to follow the rest of the world on merits, not symbolism.
<
p>THOSE our stories; the other is fluff.