shenonymous;
you;
Do you have a recognized academic degree for the health care you provide in your business, as many schuysters operate numerous “health care” facilities? 

again you make assumptions;
nowhere in my previous post did I mention TREATING these conditions; merely IDENTIFYING.

I resent the implication that we might be among the “schuysters(sic) you mention.
My partner is a Registered Nurse and a Certified Drug & Alcoholism Counselor.

you;
What exactly is your problem? 

My “problem”, is getting a straight answer to the numerous questions I have posed, without deflection, derision and misquoting.

I thank you for accepting my personal experiences without the need to label them.
You are one of few here, capable of intelligent debate.

Thanks also, for the insight into some of my responses. It is refreshing to verbally spar with someone who doesn’t have to rely upon insults and
accusation to get their point across.

First of all you don’t have to “earn” a right to opinions, whether you have experienced the content of your opinions or not, you “already have” them by natural selection, that means having opinions are within the scope of your being a conscious human being.  There is a whole science about whether opinions can be forced to be changed, it is called Forced Conformity and Compliance within the field of Social Psychology.  Paranoia is not a personality trait but a pathology.  Do you have a recognized academic degree for the health care you provide in your business, as many schuysters operate numerous “health care” facilities? 

Ok, if you are not correct and have not identified your sources, need we finish this one?  Nothing incongruous with my assessment.  While irrelevant and a straw man deflection on your part, what I learned in the halls of academia were from textbooks all with copious footnotes, references, bibliographed, and all instructor handouts also copiously footnoted, referenced, and bibliographed.  Also there were Internet search engines and sites noted by the instructors for further investigation and a campus library.  Instructors did not get hot under the collar for challenges from students, nor defensive for students asking questions about the content.  What exactly is your problem? 

You do not have to “dissect and regionalize every facet of the DOJ reports…  Only those exact lines from which you take your opinions.  Accounts of your personal experience are actually acceptable since they cannot be disputed, just as personal opinions cannot be disputed insofar as they are understood to be only opinions.  Informed opinions are a different species and if offered as truth must be supported with verifiable evidence.  We, I think I speak for others here and I am actually assuming that, so if I am not, they will certainly tell me and have a right to, don’t really care what you think or retain as opinion just so you don’t advertise them as truth or having any weight more than anybody else’s.  Opinions expressed is where prejudices and hatreds become obvious. 

I don’t blame you for not wanting to be called names.  It is a stupid and infantile practice, and only keeps one from getting a turn sliding down the sliding board, or a bloody nose.

shenonymous wrote;
Are you a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist that you can identify paranoia and diagnose it?  Or are you using the word paranoia in a sloppy way that most who do not know the import of the word use it to give support to a rather liquidy opinion.

One need not be an MD or PhD, to recognize common personality traits.
Operating a Transitional Living home for folks in recovery for 7 years, I am absolutely qualified and REQUIRED to identify numerous psychological, sociological and emotional issues on a daily basis.

you;
You might be correct in much of what you say, but you seem to pull statistics out of the air or use them cavalierly.

That assessment is patently incongruous.

Ok, if I’m correct and identified my sources, yet still you declare they are “pulled out of the air” , you are refuting your own statement.

you;
then you need to provide proof that would be acceptable by us common folk, since we are not clairvoyant. 

what you prefer as proof?
do you also dispute all you learned in school?
did you question events from history?
how was any of that “proven” to you?
I’m not attempting to prove anything to people unwilling to accept reality.

I don’t wish to dissect and regionalize every facet of the DOJ reports, FBI data etc.

would you like me to interject my personal experiences?
I can share firsthand, my interactions with the black community.
Lived most of my life in an urban city(55%minority), worked there for 30 years, Went to school with blacks, played on majority black football teams, formed garage bands with black friends, was even the victim of reverse discrimination awaiting promotion to Lieutenant on my Fire Dept. 

Does that constitute experience enough for you?
I’ve earned the right to my opinions based on personal experience, not prejudice or hatred.

I refuse to be labeled as such by cyberspace,
anonymous name-callers.

You have interesting powers of logic, FireManJohn.  I apologize if I missed that you were calling yourself slothful.  So which is it?  Are you slothful or do you ignore empirical statistical data?  Are you a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist that you can identify paranoia and diagnose it?  Or are you using the word paranoia in a sloppy way that most who do not know the import of the word use it to give support to a rather liquidy opinion.  And sliding by the somewhat moralistic use of the term clairvoyant to describe otherwise unidentified denizens on Truthdig is really calling not one person a name but a whole bunch of electronic ghosts a name.  There is the negative connotation “couched” within your use of the word.  It is all right that you refuse to see your own hubristic part in the drama of this forum.  I judge that it is a common affliction, but I have no hard evidence, just my unqualified opinion, but I admit it.  Using unsupported statistics (that is, citing a statistic without documented empirical reports, i.e., 70% of the poor here (where, America? the South Bronx? or the deep South?) are White, and what exactly is the date of your US DOJ BOJS report, how current is the data, and what exactly is the value of reporting “trends” anyway and how are trends affected?), is a common fallacy in argument.  If I said we cannot fault you for being common, would I be calling you a name?  You might be correct in much of what you say, but you seem to pull statistics out of the air or use them cavalierly.  My argument is this, if what you say is common knowledge then you need not remind us, if it is common and you think we have forgotten or if it is uncommon knowledge, then you need to provide proof that would be acceptable by us common folk, since we are not clairvoyant. 

I bet you are a nice guy.  I don’t doubt it for one second.  However, admitting oneself is ignorant of particulars is not a bad thing, but pretending one knows and using hearsay statistics as support is foolish.  It makes one sound like a prejudicial ass.  Please do not construe that last comment as calling you a name.

You do us a favor, and I for one am grateful, FireManJohn, by expressing your concerns and giving us an opportunity to reflect on our own reasons for, and clarifying, our beliefs.  It helps us to strengthen our views which might have been hitherto myopic.

you; “But let’s see, who are you calling slothful back on July 9?”

my post was “Is is sloth or ignoring empirical statistical data”, referring to MYSELF, after being called lazy.

you asked,“didn’t you call ApprxAM paranoid then too?”
absolutely; paranoia is psychological diagnosis, not an insult.

As for clairvoyant, once again not an insult;
merely a term for power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses.

The purpose of posting statistics was to refute
accusations that I was merely inventing data out of hate or ignorance.

now you accuse me of preaching hate, “couched in various and deceptive ways”

tough to get anything across on this site, without
being vilified, misquoted, demonized and prejudged.

I like to think I kept my cool, and didn’t retort in kind. one person was right..I am a nice guy!

FireManJohn I don’t get it what’s your point? And again you used selective facts. Besides all that statistics are meaningless to an individual. It’s foolish to paint an entire group with what a few in the group may or may not do.

I’m going to assume you are White I could be wrong but for the sake of argument let’s say so. Here’s a fact for you, the leading cause of violent death in the U.S. is suicide. The suicide rate is often almost 3 times the homicide rate.

Whites are more than twice as likely to commit suicides as Blacks and other minorities. So what are we to conclude about White persons we know. Should people be wary of a White FireManJohn because he is likely suicidal? Of course not.

Then when we drill down into the facts you stated we find Blacks way over represented in drug related homicides, but Whites way ahead in job related homicides… Mmmmm so if I have to fire someone should I fire the Black guy because he is not likely to return and kill someone like White guys will?

If you don’t see that statistics are meaningless to one person i don’t know what to say about you. So again I would ask what does any of the statistics you cited have to do with Barack Obama?

If I followed your logic voting for John McCain would be a real no no since people his age are more than 4 times more likely to commit suicide than a guy like Obama.

In closing I guess you are also assuming there is such a thing as equal justice in America. That’s hardly the case.

By ApprxAm, July 9 at 5:21 pm #
Shenonymous:
Thank you for the mental exercise: I need more of it.
~~~~~~

Ah…ApprxAM…so you’ve been the recipient of the delights of Shenonymous’ wisdom. And….it’s FREE!
I’m so glad. Such gifts are hard to come by these days. Takes a smart person to appreciate the value.

As an aside, I think I understand your point here…

•  “…That said, I’m under no illusion as to what will this mean to me and other Afro-Americans; racism will not end with this event, and this is Mr Obama’s triumph and his alone…”

Clearly this will not mean the end of racism for any other Afro-Americans, or even people of color in general. If 400 years hasn’t wiped it out, it ain’t gonna happen. But I don’t feel like this is Mr. Obama’s triumph alone. It could not have happened if we ALL (obviously including white people) hadn’t made some extreme improvements among ourselves..in a gradual turn to reject this racism in exchange for a far more rational mindset. So, he hasn’t managed this alone, by any stretch of the imagination.

That confirms your notice that things ARE better than they were 8, 10, 14 or more years ago, and others have in fact paved the way. I miss Shirley Chisholm. Now SHE would be the equivalent of having our cake, and eating it too! (or maybe shenonymous since we DO have her)

Speaking of which, I don’t normally entertain ‘rumors’ or read much into stuff before a larger and more confirmed picture can emerge. But, I heard read something pretty scary earlier today…like a VP choosing congregation on Obama’s plane, that INCLUDED Hillary.

Just makes me really, really, nervous. I may try to find the link if anyone else is interested. Then again, maybe not. Maybe I’d just rather wait it out and see what happens. The story wasn’t particularly revealing anyway..choosing instead (like the MSM always does) to project innuendo.

FireManJohn - Or attempting to tell it like it is.  Story, as a word, can be used as a metaphor for any organized communication.  They are always told from someone’s point of view.  When the story corresponds with real life, it is a fact-filled real life story.  The accounts given here of various neighborhoods are “stories” full of “facts.”  Telling us what is happening to you on the forum is a “story” full of “facts.”  The point is that one’s perception may not be the truth, and the truth may not be as preceived. 

I agree that it is a sign of desperation or weak position to denigrate or engage in name calling and I made reference to invective name calling as yielding no gain when I first chimed in.  I see the names you have been called.  But let’s see, who are you calling slothful back on July 9?  And weren’t you referring to facts?  And didn’t you call ApprxAM paranoid then too?  Once more, on July 7 who are you calling the clairvoyants?  Name calling is not only in one ball park here.  I am not merely referring to opinions since reporting facts often carry opinions, again which is my point.  Statistics may be interpreted in various ways. Statistics are presented as facts. Shall we go over my point again?  Are you offering some rationale for presenting those statistics?  If not, what is the point of offering them?  Hatred can be couched in various and deceptive ways.  Seems like it is going in two directions here.

Shenonymous;
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
It is also said that, feelings are not facts.
Perhaps your statement,“facts seem to change depending on who is telling the story”, would be relevant if we were discussing a novel.

What you refer to are opinions, which are subject to change. I merely display the numbers based on the compiled statistics, so hate me for exposing the truth!

Some folks here are confusing debate with hate.
It is shortsighted, puerile and closed minded to
label dissent as hate or prejudice.

Most of the anger, resentment and assumption has been directed at me.
I’ve been labeled a good ole boy, ignorant, hateful, bigoted,and a jerk.

Now who’s hateful?

Those unable to debate will always attempt to denigrate.

I read one time FireManJohn, and it seems right, that facts are no more solid, coherent, and real than pearls are (being a woman of taste, I love pearls, and that is an irrelevant fact, I know).  Most stories are full of facts…and if at times the facts seem to change depending on who is telling the story, why then just choose the fact you like best then continue on with your story.

ApprxAM,  As a person, who happens to be white, I see hope in the future with Obama.  I do not with his opponent.  Seems like his intelligence will carry him through though, which is as it should be in my book and that is why, I think, it will be his triumph.  But I don’t think he is doing it alone.  There are plenty of black people and white who are standing beside him.  The excitement is mounting for a change.  This forum is not the measure! 

Protagoras’ view that man is the measure of all things is often misunderstood.  If we take the Measure Doctrine as a truth (and we wouldn’t want to live by anything else than the truth), then we are left with no intelligible idea of a single ‘way’ things are, but only have the multitude of appearances, literally a plurality of worlds since each man’s opinion is the measure and all measures are equal.  The implication for that is that there is no connection between the way things appear and the way things are.  Everything is a moving target.  een the one doing the measuring.  There would be no reason to champion Obama for anything, nor anybody else for that matter.  It would be a very completely relativistic world indeed and strange.  Okay, you may keep your notion of man is the measure as long as you never never use the word ‘true.’  And there are worse consequences, if you think about it.

ApprxAm,
how’s this for some “factless” stats…
from the US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics;
 
Homicide trends in the U.S.
Trends by race
Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites

The list goes on to rape, robbery, assault and theft.

would you classify these reports as “hate” based, as you do my posting them?

Pointing out isolated school shootings by a few disturbed wingnuts is a weak comparison when you look at the sheer numbers of disparate violent crime.

how you can interpret hate out of my researching and posting data is beyond me.
maybe you should take a look inside, and see the real cause of your persecution complex.

By: LeeFeller

We see bigotry used around the world with embellishment, used to separate territory’s and ownership.  Bigotry also makes it easier to demonize and develop potential foes, real or not, usually not.

Yes…, Lee.  The Territorial Imperative and the general need or manifestation to conflict are as natural as double parking in front of the Wine & Spirits Shoppe in the Hamlet of Bronxville (Ref: to the careful liquor store)(Thanks, ConYank. That was funny).  But we all have our experiences and the same event yelds different perspectives and point of veiws are informed by our histories and biases. These are facts and must be recognized because objectivity is difficult to obtain, so we must strive for “higher” subjectivity.

I’ve no doubt that FireManJohn may be the coolest guy in the world, firefighters are usually cool and if he is, then he may just be that, but this forum taints things because our universal differences are stark and hightened. Emotions are hety and viscous.

Shenonymous:

Thank you for the mental exercise: I need more of it. Just ask FireManJohn!

The position we find Mr Obama in, to me, speaks volumes of this nation, for at least in this instance, a black man, running for the office of President of the United States, one of the most ubiquitous and admired symbols of this great nation, and for the time being, the bastion of the true insider, at the historical exclusion of the “outsider”, and that he’d be considered viable is astounding to me and a pleasent surprise and fills me with hope for the future.

That said, I’m under no illusion as to what will this mean to me and other Afro-Americans; racism will not end with this event, and this is Mr Obama’s triumph and his alone.  But that’s not so bad, because it’s a sign that things are better than they were eight, ten, fourteen years ago and they sure as hell better than they were when my father was growing up. What this means, and this is important, is that maybe things will continue to get better.  Funny thing though, while under the worst imaginable Vice Presidency of the nation’s history, race has played very little in the grand, overt scheme of things. At least until the Democratic Primary. Well a fella can dream.

Dear lady, that Platonic quote, and I think your point, concerned acculturated behavior, gained at the feet or ear-shot of those who espoused near the young. And I feel your lofty hope laudable and necessary, but I’m a bit too skepticle to even recognize it if I saw it. And since I hold man as the measure of all things, right or wrongly, I gleam hope from the “little” things and ignore the “small”, negative stuff as best as I can. I’ve little patience nor the perspicuity for futile exercise (I’m so glad you’re here). But I’m going to read this a few more times and ponder your perspective bit more.  I’m know I’ll learn from it.

FireManJohn:
a blatant disregard
for the unbiased findings of the entire law enforcement community.

Unbiased?  Well I beg to differ.  First, I’ve no problem with the truth, Sir. What I don’t buy is the fact you’re now claiming stats as facts, when your earlier statement was broad and as general as can be; and factless to boot. I’m not afraid of the truth, John. Crime is crime and poverty is never an excuse, of which I can’t recall stating of defending.  Do I think your statements hateful? Sure I do, but you’re allowed your hate, man. And it was hate because you didn’t quote any statistics or facts and based on your general statements: every man, woman and child in black neighborhoods were shooting it up and killing each other. Any “real” police officer, in the highest state of objectivity knows this. It takes only a few the cause caotic conditions. Two boys shoot up a school in Colorado; Nineteen men in four planes inflicted the nation with terror.

The South Bronx is crime ridden not because of its’ citizens, but because of the containment policy imposed by politicains, governmental agencies and yes, some residences. There is a high rate of asthma in the South Bronx, also, so do we blame those afflicted children? (They don’t drive the truck on the Bruckner Expwy and on Hunts Point Blvd.)

But check this out, John, I don’t really care if you don’t like blacks, because that would make you too important and based on your writings, you’re to be ignored. You can quote stats with no context and make over-reaching claims and then falsely accuse me of the same liberal bulls%it I despise and attribute to the very problem of crime we’re talking about is weak.

So keep hating, but keep the lies to yourself.

I cannot help what I felt.  Perhaps it was senseless, but it was sensible to me and I, apparently defectively, grew up that way, holding beliefs. That doesn’t mean I think (believe) you are wrong ApprxAm (by the way that is a very strange nomen, it is an electronic praenomen, as most of ours are.  I like it best because it reveals a strange fantastical mind, mildly science fictiony).  Now making perfect sense of using the idea of racism as a catapult for belief does seems a lofty purpose.  And the argument seems to be that beliefs regardless how they became part of one’s psyche are useful to provide a base for “potential” action. What is the truth of that?

When we speak of the future, we speak hypothetically, metaphorically, because we do not know the future, thus not knowing is an inherent truth about the future. The ease of leaping a pond of ignorance with a defective belief is a misery I contend, not a human good. 

A small secular parable of logic is offered:  Plato says you can’t learn something you don’t already know and that it is only a matter of remembering what was learned at an earlier time, perhaps even in an earlier lifetime.  Whether or not you are a believer or unbeliever in recurrent lifetimes is moot for the purposes of this parable.  It seems to be a paradox but when you think about it, it might have some truth to it for once you see the truth of a paradox obtained is the recognition it is the truth. Now this idea of truth itself seems to be a paradox as well that the truth about truth is that it is completely true.  For to know the truth about truth you are using the very word itself to gather up knowledge of itself. Don’t you find that strangely (paradoxically) interesting? So the fact of the matter is that the truth about truth is an even more complex idea since we are now using the word ‘fact’ as truth, and now we left with the truth of the matter about the truth about truth.  Have we here generated an infinite regress that always leads us to fruitless speculation, and isn’t that the truth about truth? 

Making a giant leap of faith, then, that I could even with some modicum of success move towards the truth, I moved a little bit further to think about what is being said on this forum about racism and entertained arguments for and against whether it makes ‘sense’ to think racism is a bad thing and originated from perfect ignorance. 

ApprxAm seems to be proposing beliefs are indiscriminatingly in themselves a good since they propel action and that racism is one of those about which one can have beliefs.  Isn’t the question not whether beliefs propel action, but is it true that all beliefs are equally valuable to promote action?  Would we not also have to by extension accept that all actions from these promotional beliefs are equally valuable as well?  What are the implications of that?

I received an email from Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, Progressives for Obama, that seems relevant to our conversation:  The topic: “Our greatest problem is racism.”  The reasoning goes that the election of Obama is (by implication) absolutely necessary to “overcome…the racism so prevalent throughout the nation.”  This obviously is a belief.  I think ApprxAM your point was made that the idea of racism is useful even though Mr. Gonzalez’s reasoning is circular.  I think he would have done better to have given reasons why Mr. Obama would be the better president, but instead he uses his time and ours to present an ambiguous concept (a belief about racism) to make a case.  I propose such a tactic is ineffective and timewasting and that holding unsupportive beliefs (the belief that racism is a good) is counterproductive.  Further, I believe opposing beliefs are not budged one bit by such vacuous and speculative (belief) arguments.  Having no proof either to support my belief or to show it is wrong, I will continue to hold it (giving my point just a nano-ounce of proof that it is true).  But then how much truth is needed

Bigotry is a staple of society, racism is more focused but results from the same ideas. Bigotry feeds on the,  us and them mentality, and it may be come from our animal heritage, an instinct left over from cave man days,  We see bigotry used around the world with embellishment,  used to separate territory’s and ownership.  Bigotry also makes it easier to demonize and develop potential foes, real or not, usually not. 

Stereotyping seems to be a great tool used to bolster bigots arguments, of course supported by the us and them mentality.  Us and them works out great for the elite for they are always the us and point at the them. 

Reasoned thought may be the only recourse to bigotry, unfortunately, reason looks to be in short supply.

ApprxAm wrote;
But if it’s laziness and willful disregard to cognized(sic) facts,

Is is sloth or ignoring empirical statistical data
compiled by the FBI, state and local Police Dept’s,
of the disparate rates of criminality perpetrated by Blacks in America?

It is not prejudicial, racist or immoral to state the facts. Before you compile a list of excuses, such as poverty or lack of opportunity, remember 70% of the poor here are White.

Apprxm, your interpretation of any of my posts as hateful is based on paranoia and a blatant disregard
for the unbiased findings of the entire law enforcement community.

Being raised to consider people of color other than my own as equal and simply as having another color of skin, I personally always felt racism to be complete madness and the result of perfect ignorance.

Shenonymous

First, let me start out saying that I love the “Perfect ignorance” phrase. But racism makes perfect sense, Shenonymous. It makes sense because to some, it’s a belief and requires a leap of faith and that pond has been easily leapt.  Convienience, hate, lazy misunderstanding - these are beliefs and they only require the potentional action of those who hold them, no matter the process of acquisition or its circumstances.

Take Affirmative Action, for instance.  I have no idea exactly what it is nor have I met anyone whose benefited from it, but yet, the stigma lingers.  someone on this blog exclaimed that blacks were tainted by it even though the “good blacks” used it or not.  This form of logic is collectivist to it’s core for they are the same one who complains when the mere appearance of “Black unity” surfaces.

They, them, et al…used perjoratively and with that casual indignant, nation guarding posture reserved for them and not us. “On Omaha Beach and didn’t see any blacks there!”, so there, it must be true then. No weapon fixation or concern for the Nazi turrents raining bullets from on high, just someone looking for negro soldiers? Wasn’t there more theatres in what has been called a “World War”? How lazy, simplistic and sadly atavistic.

Oh, well, we fall back on the comfortable and look toward the easy horizon.

I’m at a lost as to what the qualifications for President of the United States are.  truthfulness; intelligence; bravery? Fortune of circumstances, good or bad, and what one does with them constructs the legacy of a presidency.  But what predicts that?

Let’s not fool ourselves; candidates, whether high-office or school boards seekers, must charm the people.  Facts and experience matter only to those who care at that time and toward whom ever they feel. It is most likely that intelligent balancing plays very little in the choices most make in voting democracies. So, is he, Obama, qualified because he’s black or under qualified because he is black? It’s neither, I devine, because for it matters and others, not.

Our Stomachs Have eyes

So, everyone is doing the belly test and that can included one’s race. Whites and blacks, alike, uses this because everyone does and it’s foolish to ignore it. Obama has given a great number of Euro-Americans cause to feel otherwise, and some not-so-much. What is most important is the watermark of this run; how it may be possible for regular Afro-Americans to impress upon our fellow Americans, we’re here to be here, no matter the tone of our discontent.

I don’t feel we need to prove anything, but Obama does.  The latter is par for the course and expected, the former merely “pain-in-the-assness” by those expecting the average person to pass their “paperbag” citizen test; totally unnecessary and just plain lazy or mean spirited. Black’s patriotism isn’t in question, it’s just a hoop to make some people feel goood about themselves (like poll taxes and Bell Curve gaps).

FireManJohn needn’t be confronted. Why, you may ask? Because, simply, it’s a waste of time. He claims that,“Blacks are criminals” or “lack respect for authority”; who the hell is going to convince him otherwise. It’s like intergration in the sixties and seventies, the more you try, the more they fight, but no one asked whether it works; and it doesn’t.  So forget those losing battles. I respect his honesty and his feelings. But if it’s laziness and willful disregard to cognized facts, them he’d be a jerk.  But if he hates, well, I’m sure he has his reasons.

Shout to my friend, Cyrena…..you’re good at this!!!  And I agree, this is one of Mr. Robertson’s better articles.  To bad it’s about race, though.  It makes me sleepy. Night, friend. Yell back!

clairvoyant Leefeller here, it seems to me you made a comment about the liberals on TD, and made it seem quite important being sure to mention Obama being a black man who has who would not have been in the race except for his color.  A very bigoted statement, it is one thing to attack Obama on the issues but the mention of his color was your comments fire in the hole. 

Will credit you with your slight retraction giving credit to the black people who served in WWII.

My clairvoyant qualities do not refelect those of what jackdaknife wrote.  Also your clairvoyant (your words) have put words in posters posts, nor do you seem to address the real comments in some of the posts, you need to hone your clairvoyant incapableness’s.

jackdaknife wrote;
Now if you really feel you need to complain, question or demonized(sic) a person because of their race remember this: for better or worst(sic)...

then wrote this about me;
ignorant racist,
half-witted comments,
some jerks here,
Good Ol’ Boy!

and this about the Republican candidate,
below average, phony, lying John McCain.

The ultimate assumption and presumption posted by jack was;
because of racism we know white America much better than they know us simply because they never bothered to know us…

What would the ACLU, Whites who march for equality,
donate to UNCF, work pro-bono for The Innocence Project think about your theory?

to the clairvoyants on truthdig,

Never mentioned in any of my posts was support of Bush,
no reference to my party affiliation,
no praise of right wing ideals.
Nowhere on this site do they discourage dissenting opinion.
I disagree with extremists both left and right.

I find it interesting the assumptions, speculation and accusations posted by many here.
Thanks to you all for telling me how and what I think.

Perhaps you should collaborate on a psychic network
and help others with their thought processes.

Actually, among the current crop of Democratic candidates, I considered Hillary Clinton the least qualified. 

Had she not been married to Bill, she could not have run for senate, much less for president.

Not that I dislike argument, but I wonder why a Bush loyalist would even register on a left leaning website. 

George Bush, by the way, relied on “affirmative action”—for wealthy whites it’s referred to as legacy entitlements—throughout his entire life.  Thanks to his father, he could go to Yale despite his low test scores.  Thanks to his father, he could nab a job as governor of Texas despite his having no political resume himself and despite having failed miserably in business.  The more qualified brother was clearly Jeb who at least paid his dues.

I’m always shocked at how ill informed people are about the history of their country.  JFK was also belittled for lack of experience, charged with having got the presidency only because of his father’s money and connections—some underhanded business in West Virginia….

Affirmative action!LOL

Thanks FireManJohn kudos to your dad he knew the truth and that’s what he told you. In this is a cautionary tale for everyone. It’s easy to take a single fact and rush to a sweeping conclusion based on assumptions. If I had taken the time to ask additional questions, I would not have assumed you were a bigot, so for that I apologize.

However I must tell you characterizing Barack Obama as an affirmative action candidate for President is circular reasoning. The proof offered is, if Barack Obama was White he would not be in the position he is in now. That is an assertion that neither you nor anyone can ever factually prove. My gut feel says that Obama could be any race and he would be in the same position he is in today. It’s his skills, his talent, his intellect not his race that has brought him to be where he is today.

What I can also say is your statement infuriates successful Black men and women everywhere. the net effect is when a Black person succeeds it’s never his or her ability and skills, it’s all about race. On the other hand when a Black person does not succeed again it’s all about race.

Colin Powell heard the same argument when he was promoted over virtually every 3 star to the rank of 4 Star General. Oh they gave it to him because he was Black. Some people were simply unwilling to accept he got there on a combination of talent, intellect and the trust of the 1st President George Bush.

If anything we should be celebrating how Obama ran a brilliant campaign to capture the nomination from the presumptive favorite to win. No one gave him a hair of a chance to defeat the Clintons. And this in country that has yet to, as Secretary Rice said, cured and corrected its birth defect, the preoccupation with race.

Such statements also do a disservice to the millions of people who supported Obama. You mean they voted for a Black guy to be President just because he was Black? That makes no sense.

As far as experience is concerned that’s red herring and you know it. Anyone with something on the ball has heard that old saw designed to keep smart, talented people back. I’ll just bet that you have heard it before too, you know get a little more seasoning, or wait your turn.

I would ask what experience do you want a Presidential candidate to have. Experience at what? What experience counts and what experience doesn’t count. If there is anything historians agree on it’s that a President’s previous experience in government, civilian side or military, in no way predicts the success or failure of that President. Presidents with vast government experience have been abject failures while others with little experience have been very successful.

Good gawd!  It is a moot issue who and how long citizens of this country have been here.  The fact is, there are whites who have been here a long time, blacks who have been here equally a long time, and redmen who have been here longer than either.  What is the friggin argument?  Redmen served in the armed services and wars as well.  So have Asians who have been here perhaps a shorter time, and Hispanics who claim to have been here as long as or even before the Indians in some places, but so what, really? 

The argument apparently is about racism.  That one fifth of the men killed in the Boston Massacre was a slave is not usually mentioned in history books is that most history books are not about racism nor slavery although both are mentioned usually in a chapter or so, leastwise the ones I had in school.  The history and cruelty of slavery is not secret.  What do we know exactly the circumstances for Crispus Attucks’s patriotism?  Doing some research, it looks like his is the only “name is commonly remembered of that incident.  Not much is known about him except that he was a run-away slave turned sailor and that he may have had Native American ancestry. Isn’t that important? Robinson did not mention that.  A cursory bio may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispus_Attucks

There is an exhibtion in the Library of Congress if anyone is interested, see
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trr046.html
and a bit more learned at http://www.framingham.com/history/profiles//crispus/index.htm
and more found on the PBS part 2 of the Revolution series at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p24.html

The argument raging so far on this forum will not be settled given the diametrically opposed and heated views being expressed.  What exactly is the point?  That each side vents their own vituperation?  Is this a pissing contest?  Invective can become addictive and ought to be self controlled!  Defensive postures taken on this forum are not going to further either side’s political position.  Neither Obama nor McCain will win from the arguments given here! None of the erudite comments will change minds.  Opponents believe they have the absolute correct view.  Maybe there is something in both views that is correct?  Is it really a relative matter?  Probably not.  But how can it be decided when accusations as shown up here have been reduced to name calling and retaliation?  Some have given a few rational reasons for their beliefs but others offer emotionally charged whooping and as it was called by jackdaknife, “rabbling”?  Nothing can be gained with the intensely and inflammatory entrenched views being offered. 

Now you can turn your hate towards me, a white woman who never served in any army nor fought any war and who never will for any reason, and who will not vote for McCain for reasons other than the fact that because he was a prisoner of war does not in anyway qualify him to be president, and who will vote for Obama not because he is of two races or did nor did not serve in any of the armed forces, and whether or not George Bush did or did not serve, which is also irrelevant, but because Obama is the smartest man on the ballot, in my opinion, and he represents my social and personal views better than McCain.

The fact of the matter still remains;
Obamas’ experience in the political arena
is greener than any Presidential candidate
in modern history.

No fire sprouter,

This is my point. Any political candidate in modern history includes GWB. He had far less experience than Obama.

You’re also wasting your time with me on the affirmative action thing. I know far too many successful, professional blacks who’ve gotten where they are on their own dime, based on their own talents, DESPITE the fact that they were black.

Our history proves that qualified blacks are ROUTINELY passed over for LESS QUALIFIED white people, for jobs and every other single opportunity there is, every single day.

So, by the time the ‘system’ occasionally produces a black professional, you can bet your last nickel that he or she had to be 5 times as qualified as the average white guy/girl.

That’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it remains today.

And, we all know it.

dihey

Never having been to Mississippi, however I conjure up a stereotype of grown men wearing sheets made in China, burning crosses on selected front lawns might have something to do with the election results.

Here is a puzzle that baffles me. Approximately 25% of the residents of the State of Mississippi are African-Americans. Why is it that Mississippi voted for the Republican presidential candidate ever since Jimmy Carter? Why is it that Mississippi did not elect a Democratic Senator for 25 years? Given that 25% is a huge minority, that is a huge puzzle to me.

Fireman John,

“White man with identical qualifications ever being considered for President.”

second post you stated:

Fortunately he was not in this candidate race.
Try comparing Obamas’ experience to the current Democratic competition. 

Then indeed the experiences of the classic white man, Bush has helped this country extensively. 

Your Bigoted statements about Obama, are just that, you of course will never admit the fact.  My thoughts aboutt experience has nothing to do with color, nor do I believe it matters. 

One would hope someone out of the D.C. main stream would bring the peoples interests to the table, this may not be anyway. We see the Washington mindset taking over the two selected for us running for office.

Once under the wings of Washington, a blithering moron could be president. Proof is in the pudding, McCain would be an addition to my comment.

cyrena wrote;
“So I think you should take your notions of ‘affirmative action’ and shove them right up your ass”

nice to see you did your homework.
Keep listening to Air(head)America,
reading the Daily Kos and New York Times.

Your Bush-bashing skills are sharply honed.

Fortunately he was not in this candidate race.
Try comparing Obamas’ experience to the current Democratic competition.

Unfortunately for you, the legacy of affirmative
action has tainted and illegitimized the accomplishments of Blacks who have actually earned them.

The fact of the matter still remains;
Obamas’ experience in the political arena
is greener than any Presidential candidate
in modern history.

You are proof that the Democratic party remains one of denigrating, monday morning quarterbacking and being reactive rather than proactive.

FireMan John

I just had to respond to this jaw dropping question you posed…

“…You never answered my question about Obama’s experience(or lack of it)and the impossibility of a White man with identical qualifications ever being considered for President….”

You’re kidding, right? If not, please tell me what ‘experience’ or other ‘qualifications’ George W Bush had before the morons of the nation actually voted for him.

Here are a few things to consider while you think of it..

He was AWOL from the National Guard, which is the closest he came to pretending at any military service….NOT that military services is or should be a requirement for a civilian position in the government. (and that’s what the POTUS is). I’d no more get into an aircraft with the moron at the controls than I would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. Things aren’t that bad yet.

He managed to bankrupt a few of his pet companies that pops set him up with, (Harken Oil being one of them) and stiffed all of the investors. Pops and Hillary Clinton working on behalf of the Rose Law firm got him out of that.

George Bush is totally stupid, and without any knowledge of anything that a president should know, including basic geography. He once wondered if South Korea was the ‘good’ Korea or the ‘bad’ Korea.

He talks to god for advice on how to do his job.

He never held a public office until Karl Rove managed to get him the gig as Texas Governor in preparation for his Presidential pursuits. And, he managed to F that up really badly, even though he didn’t even serve a full term. (told everybody he wasn’t gonna serve a full term when the morons in Texas elected him)

He only did the stint at Harvard because of his ‘connections.” He would have flunked out of Yale long before even that, if it wasn’t for those SAME ‘connections.’

Did I mention he was stupid?

He’s a known alcoholic and drug addict, supposedly dry now. (hard to believe).

He’d never held a REAL job in his entire life before being assigned the presidency.

Now do you wanna rephrase your question about white men and qualifications? The moron that has occupied the Oval Office for nearly 8 years is white, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Barack Obama has been in public service for nearly 2 decades, at both the State and Federal levels. He’s also a Magnum Cum Laude of Harvard Law, where he paid his own way, by the way. He’s taught the same, (Constitutional Law) in 2 Universities in Chicago.

He obviously DID NOT accomplish this by way of any royal connections to the political establishment.

So I think you should take your notions of ‘affirmative action’ and shove them right up your ass. And while you’re there, you can keep an eye out for any ‘qualifications’ or experience of the currant occupant of the white house that I might have missed.

Fireman John,

“White man with identical qualifications ever being considered for President.”  Dost seem racist to me. One could ask the same question of Commander Cod Piece, in-fact his record seems, about as good as his presidency.  From Vietnam evader to village idiot becoming president.

You voting for McCain,  alleged serge is working, war hero?

gatlinggun,
Just got off the phone with my dad and
you are 100% correct concerning Blacks being precluded from combat; my apologies. He did mention the excellent job they did with ammo & supplies.
You wrote;“Why would anyone seek to down play Barack Obama’s accomplishment in securing the Democratic nomination for President?
What I see as a detriment to the accomplishment, is the almost “affirmative action” connotation that comes with it.
You never answered my question about Obama’s experience(or lack of it)and the impossibility of a White man with identical qualifications ever being considered for President. You and I know it would NEVER happen. Why is that? White guilt, reverse racism, or political correctness.

FireManJohn Pray tell how else do you characterize a person who makes a statement of fact that is obviously so incorrect as to be laughable? “... And there were NO restrictions on them being there.” Unless one has been in a time warp or ignorant of U.S. history they would have to know the statement is false. If, however, you actually had no idea Blacks were restricted from serving in frontline combat units, or that Blacks have served honorably in all of our Nation’s Wars I’ll be the first one to say great, FireManJohn learned something he did not know.

If not I can only wonder why anyone would question the patriotism of an entire class of people. Why would anyone juxtapose Barack Obama in a paragraph that denigrates the patriotism of Black people as a whole? Why would anyone seek to down play Barack Obama’s accomplishment in securing the Democratic nomination for President?

If indeed you are an open minded, fair minded person then I do apologize for using the word bigot. But whether you are, or not, the words in your paragraph are so typical of how bigots try to lump Blacks into some negative monolithic entity at every turn.

I think you know full well exactly what you were trying to do. I’m still waiting on your source to support the key so-called fact in your post.

gatliggun6,
Have you forgotten the personal attacks so soon?
let me refresh your memory;“flat out bigot, ignorant, stupid and ignorant, willful ignorance,remain ignorant”
You should apply for a job at The U.S. Dept. of Redundancy Deptartment.
We’re all impressed with your historical acumen.
My original post consisted of much more then the veteran reference.

Sorry FireManJohn but I didn’t have to google anything or do you actually believe you are the only one who ever talked to a WWII Vet, or have WWII vets in their family. For almost 3 years I interviewed WWII Vets on a professionally. I also researched unit records and reports at the National Archives, not to mention I was a tanker, not to mention I went from Normandy to Bastonge following the track of numerous WWII units including the 761st Tank. Some of my research was done about units at the point of the German main thrust in the Battle of Bulge. So sorry, but I didn’t need Google to know what I have known for years.

If you reread what I wrote you’ll note nowhere did I question your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. What I questioned was your facts and the selective use of the facts you used. None of what I wrote is any great secret. It’s available in sources too numerous to mention.

None other than the official history of the United States Army states unequivocally that Blacks were denied service in front line combat units. You wrote in caps there were no “RESTRICTIONS”. Here’s your opportunity to cite the source of that fact. Show us anywhere in any official document, history, what have you that in an officially segregated Army that Blacks were free to serve in Infantry, Armor and Artillery units in the European Theater of Operations (ETO).

Surely you must have known that the Armed Forces was so segregated and so biased and racist until German POWs held in the South on military posts often enjoyed greater privileges than American Black soldiers had on the same post. Yet Blacks continued to volunteer and fight in the service of the Nation during WWII, as they did and have done in all our wars and conflicts.

When the WWII Monument was dedicated I took my family to see it. A Black park ranger gave us a wonderful tour. When the tour ended, I asked are you a WWII Vet? He said yes. Finally I asked so what happened when you returned home, how were you treated? He laughed and said when we got off the boat all we wanted was a cold beer, so we headed into the nearest bar only to be told we don’t serve your kind here.

If there is any blemish on the awesome accomplishments of the Greatest Generation, this is it! Millions fought for freedom and democracy around the world, only to return home and deny those who also fought, or served in other ways those same rights. As many of those vets have said to me, it is not something of which they are proud. Regardless of this FireManJohn, when I go to the WWII Memorial and I can identify a WWII veteran I always walk up to them and offer my hand while thanking them for their service.

5 million men served in the ETO, so to cite what a few individuals may have seen or not seen is not relevant to what happened in the entire ETO. Besides as I wrote before every part of an Army is crucial to the success of that Army. The next time you go to attend a reunion of a combat unit ask how far they could have gone without supplies. As a tanker I can tell you nowhere. Those Black soldiers unloading ships, and driving trucks to the front under assault from the Lutfwaffe performed an invaluable and critical service.

Finally FireManJohn I frequently visit Arlington National cemetery and I have yet to see a headstone with the inscription here lies a Black trooper, or a White one, or a leftist one, or a Democrat, Conservative, Republican, etc. Instead, they are all unified by death and service to the nation. The same is true of the Vietnam Memorial, where they remain side by side for eternity without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or anything else.

It’s interesting that you immediately sought to put a political label on someone who disagreed with your post. Did you ever to stop to think that I was just an American who wondered why you wrote a post that had the effect of disparaging the patriotism of other Americans? An American who wondered what on earth was the point of your post?

Leefeller,

•    Bigots permeated TD during the Hillary war, it would be nice if they acknowledged their ignorance and hate, but they seem to love being what they are. In a twisted way, a bigot could say their feelings are really patriotism not bigotry.”

Those same bigots are still hanging around. Any while it never occurred to me before you said it here, they actually DO seem to love being the bigots that they are. They so much love it that even if they ‘get their way’ they aren’t satisfied, and have to continue the attack from another angle.

And no, they NEVER apologize, not even when they’ve been faced with the facts head on. Just like during the Hillary war, they would never, ever concede to their being the slightest error on the part of Hillary or her campaign, and they would never acknowledge a single solitary positive to Obama or his campaign. That’s what bigots do. And once they’ve lost, they turn into the worst case of sour grapes one could ever imagine. Because of course it’s never about anything but INDIVIDUALLY *WINNING* because it’s never about anything or anyone other then themselves.

Now have any of those kitchen sink throwers during the Hilary war ever apologized? Of course not. They return with different user names, and continue the assault. And with nothing to stand on besides hot and irrelevant air, they revert to personal attacks. As a result, they play right into the plan for divisiveness, providing – as you say – the most perfect tool.

And…it never ceases to amaze me.

Patriotism defined by whom?  If you did not support the war, this could only mean you did not support the troops to some.  Patriotism is a word used to instill emotions, one could love his country but not his government, or am I wrong?

gatlinggun6,

Thanks for the history information.  Bigots permeated TD during the Hillary war, it would be nice if they acknowledged their ignorance and hate, but they seem to love being what they are. In a twisted way, a bigot could say their feelings are really patriotism not bigotry.

Division of the people is all part of the plan, bigots provide the perfect tool.  Has anyone ever seen a bigot apologize?

for gattlinggun6;
No need for the disparaging personal attack.
Obviously, I realize debate with the left is usually precipitated by character assassination.
Thanks for reminding me of the futility of expressing opinions, without getting labeled, bigoted and ignorant, by someone who know nothing about me or my experiences.
Kudos on your ability to google information.
FYI, I attended reunions of the 3rd Armored & 486th AAA with my Dad since 1965. Much of my info and outlook came from conversations with hundreds of WW II vets, who were there. Perhaps they are bigoted and ignorant also?

No amount of facts will ever convince flat out bigots like FireManJohn of the worth of anyone of color even if like Barack Obama they are half Black, and half White.

I long since stopped worrying about people like him. If they wish to remain ignorant that’s their problem suffice to say while they still make a lot of noise with their stupid and ignorant words, they are on the wrong side of history. Eventually they will be in the smallest minority.

How can any American not know that the American Army fighting for freedom and democracy in WWII offered neither to Black Americans yet they volunteered to fight as Blacks have always done in every single war and conflict in the nation’s history. If FireManJohn does not know of these facts in the 21st century, his is a case of willful ignorance.

The Army had no intentions of creating or sending, at the time, Negro combat formations to fight in any theater of war. Ultimately they were forced to do so, although such Negro units were led by mostly White officers.

This brings us to FireManJohn’s reference to the Battle of the Bulge and the fact that his father said he hardly saw any Black soldiers. The fact is there were RESTRICTIONS. Able bodied Black soldiers were not allowed in combat units. Combat necessity did see a few Black soldiers serving in all White combat units but that test was short lived.

There was one notable exception the 761st Tank Battalion, Commanded by White Officers with some Black junior officers and all Black enlisted men.

The 761st Tank like FireManJohn’s father’s unit also served in the Battle of Bulge. They arrived in Oct 1944 in the European Theater of Operation attached to General Patton’s famed 3rd Army. They would remain in continuous combat until they finally met up with Russian units in Austria. Along the way they assisted in liberating the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. They served with heroism and distinction as their Presidential Unit Citation attests. If the American Army had permitted, they would not have been alone.

Aside from that someone should explain to FireManJohn that a division like his dad’s in WWII required 700 to 750 tons of supplies a day. Try moving and fighting an armored division without tank ammunition, gas, food, water, and a myriad other supplies. No supplies, no fight.

Now who do you suppose brought those supplies to his dad’s division? Well the supplies came by trucks driven primarily by Black soldiers. The same soldiers who would have leaped at the chance to be on the front if they had been allowed.

None of this information is secret or difficult to find. So I leave it to the readers to ponder why people are ignorant and apparently proud to remain ignorant.

Obama’s color has everything to do with many American’s reluctance to vote for him. He’s green; has paid less dues than any candidate in US history. His Black heritage allows him to ascend where no White man ever could, with similar experience.
My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge, with the 3rd Armored division and hardly saw a Black on the front lines; and there were NO restrictions on them to be there.
As for today’s Blacks, many are less than patriotic, as evidenced by their lack of respect for authority,
and propensity for questionable and illegal behavior.

Over 90% of black people voted for Obama.  I don’t think their not supporting him initially can so easily be attributed to black racism.  He was not well known outside Chicago and most of us thought, including me initially though I did work for him anyway, that he didn’t have a chance.  Desperate to get from under Bush, black people chose a known quantity. 

Yes, there are many black people who hate being black, hate other black people, don’t trust them, who believe that blacks have a place where they should stay…I know many of them. 

I just don’t believe that black racism has been a huge factor in the Obama campaign.  People don’t understand racism—they think racism occurs only with people who hate and call names and wear hoods.  Some of my good white friends, unbeknownst to them, have said and done racist things, assumed a stereotype on the basis of race.  Mention it to them and they get flustered, frightened. 

It’s like when they come over to my house for the first time and are shocked that it’s so nice.  It’s when its assumed that I can’t write or communicate effectively and so a job is given to another whose complexion guarantees those skills.

Racism is indeed complicated.

The unfortunate thing about 24/7 media is its desperation for stories, its ability to repeat rumors and slurs all day every day and feed the mentality willing to accept them.

The Right is in full throttle now, testing all the weaknesses, manipulating coverage.  And they won’t stop.

This notion that now that Obama is a viable nominee means that black history or the black experience is no longer mentionable has always disturbed me.  At work the other day, a couple of students were hee hawing at the dept of institutional diversity, accusing it of not being diverse because most of the students it supported and tutored were black.  What’s diverse about that, they asked?  I explained that the department was charged with supporting and maintaining a black student population in what used to be an all white institution.  “Well, that was a hundred years ago—segregation.”  They hurried out once I explained that Jim Crow persisted through the 60s in the south, that many schools didn’t integrate until nearly the 70s. 

Robinson states all this without anger or bitterness.  But Michelle Obama, who unfortunately backtracked on her utterance, meant to say what she said.  Black people have fought for this country; we fought for our own freedom, our own rights as citizens, long denied even when legalized. 

Patriotic, yes—to the concept and promise of democracy that was long denied to black people in this country but which we are slowly but surely realizing for all.  When you’ve been beat down, lynched, spit on, kicked, cheated, excluded, called names—well, on some days it’s very hard to be proud of one’s country.

But we are getting there.

Good post cyrena!
Being raised to consider people of color other than my own as equal and simply as having another color of skin, I personally always felt racism to be complete madness and the result of perfect ignorance. 

Now the way I see it, the fault-finding of Obama is a desperate move by competitors to win the most powerful office in the country and it doesn’t really have to do with ideology or patriotism or even race, although race would be used to stir up latent fear emotions as political psychologists quite exactly understand the use of that device.  If it had to do with ideology, then voters would have a clear choice between Obama and McCain and could decide if they want more of the same or want to change.  McCain, regardless of any peripheral differences, represents exactly the same politics as the country has had for eight years and promises continued benefit for the few Americans who already have money and power.  Obama represents a difference and the promise of change in the direction for the benefit of most Americans who do not have wealth and have no power except when they have one voice.  The desperate fault-finding move against Obama is to maintain the status quo that feeds the armaments industry and corporate corrals.  It has nothing really to do with religion or social benefits for the less privileged, or race since Obama is of two races and the race card is rather ridiculous for either side.  It has to do with money and only money and who may have some and who may not! 

There is always a massive amount of activities going on that is not seen by the general public.  The machinations of Wall Street, for instance, and the daily reports we get on TV are merely chapter headings for what actually happens.  Underneath are all the tradings that go on in the farming and food industries, the oil industry, the bomb manufacturers, the clothing industries which takes into account the fabric manufacturers and where they get the resources to make their fabrics as well.  The trading industry is unending and infinite.  It rules our lives more than we can ever suspect.  If one were to think only for a moment about the pair of shoes you might be wearing at this very second and how they came to be, the cascading of enterprises involved would be staggering.  It is this hidden edifice that drives the money markets and the Republican machine to keep power because to provide for social programs for the people who do all the work, the labor, who cannot afford a decent life would verily bite into their profits without question. But since the news media is owned and operated by the corporate world, we get just the kind of information they want us to get, not truth, not reality.  Period.

Obama represents big bites into that elaborate conceptual structure.

Now THIS is the best yet. (I keep saying that to nearly half of every all the articles Eugene writes) Still, thanks for writing this for us ALL Eugene.

So, Eugene has expressed some ‘wonderings’ here, and I have the same.

“..It is not common, in my experience, for sitting U.S. senators to be questioned on their love of country—to be grilled about a flag pin, for example, or critiqued on the posture they assume when the national anthem is played. For an American who attains such high office, patriotism is generally assumed as a given…”

Yep, this is true. It’s certainly not AT ALL common for sitting U.S. senators to be questioned about their patriotism, and I noticed that during all of the flag pin lynchings that the media has conducted, NOBODY else present at the time of the lynchings was wearing flag pins either. Humm, makes me ‘wonder’ why Obama’s missing flag pin was such a huge topic of concern.

So Eugene wonders this:

•  “It seems that some people don’t want to give Obama the benefit of that assumption, however, and I have to wonder if that’s because he’s black. And then I have to wonder why.”

Well, the first part seems like a correct answer to his own question on why some people don’t want to give Barack the benefit of that same assumption. Yep. It’s because he’s black. Now the other part, WHY does his being black prevent him from receiving that same benefit of that same assumption.

Humm…try a national mentality founded on racism that has prevailed for 400 years. Thing is, for many folks, that doesn’t explain why even BLACK folks don’t want to give Barack Obama the same benefit and/or respect they’d give to any other white senator or candidate for the office of president. Now why is THAT?

Humm…same reason that the white racists don’t. For many, it’s just the same ignorance and envy and resentment. They don’t believe that ANY black person should be in what they perceive to be (or what actually is) a better ‘place’ or ‘status’ then they are. It (irrationally) pisses them off. For the white racists, it’s imperative that there ALWAYS be a ‘class BELOW them’ even if they’re reaching up to lick dirt. For the black racists, (who hate people of their own race who attain any measure of perceived success) it’s still resentment and envy. In their own minds, they ‘identify’ with the ‘white folks’ and so they have to denigrate the blacks the same way, for the same reasons. OR, these same black racists may not be so much racist as they are purely envious. For instance, if Obama came to them and personally fawned over them and begged for their vote, and invited them to take part in his campaign, with an offer of some sort of perceived ‘privileges’ they’d probably change their mind.

But, not so the white ones. For them, it’s just a matter of learned/inherited racism. And with that comes a history of definitely hating any perceived ‘success’ by any black folks. It’s just not ‘posed to happen.

The GOOD news however, is that we’re even having this conversation. It means that the racists are dying off, and that people are getting smarter, and dumping the self-defeating stupid ideologies. Not ALL people, because if that were the case, we ALSO wouldn’t be having this conversation about missing flag pins, and questioning patriotism, and Barack wouldn’t be wasting all of this time and energy having to defend his. Still, attrition seems to be working well enough, or we wouldn’t be planning on having Obama as the next president.

So there we have it. Happy Independence Day. Maybe if we celebrate it (or at least acknowledge it) enough times, it will finally become a reality.

Thanks again Eugene.