Limbaugh sings "Obama the Magic negro"

[Dancing David]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012?f=h_top

Apparently he tries to own the term "Magic Negro" and then blame it on the left.

[slingblade]

Oh my farking ed, I hate people.

[ponderingturtle]

Well I have heard the term "magic negro" bandied about for a certain type of movie. The golf one that had will smith in it was the one that caused the term to be mentioned.

[Dr Adequate]

That man is all class.

[Cain]

When hear "negro" I think black. Isn't there some other conservative radio douchebag calling Obama "Halfrican-American." I guess they haven't figured out exactly the best method to slime him.

[Upchurch]

Isn't there some other conservative radio douchebag calling Obama "Halfrican-American."
No, I believe that is the same conservative radio douchebag.

[Dr Adequate]

"So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate."

Russ, you're a great American. No, wait, what's that other word?

Douche.

[fuelair]

No, I believe that is the same conservative radio douchebag.
Actually, for two reasons, I believe he should be referred to as an enema bag.
1) Douchebag may tend to be sexist. AND
2) Like my suggestion, he brings out the srule8 onto everyone.

[calebprime]

His delivery with all those pregnant pauses makes a disgusting text even more disgusting.

Maybe he'll go the way of Imus.

[Upchurch]

Actually, for two reasons, I believe he should be referred to as an enema bag.Whatever jargon you prefer. I was just specifying that we weren't talking about some other douche/enema/wind/garbage bag.

[corplinx]

I think you all missed the point.

From TFA:
Limbaugh later asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term," adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the 'Magic Negro,' there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio."

Apparently, the experiment worked...

If you read TFA from MMA, its actually very precise highlighting that Limbaugh thought the original op-ed was BS since it was asserting that white people want to vote for Obama to assuage white guilt. While I am sure that is true in a few cases, I doubt it is the case in general.

[Upchurch]

Apparently, the experiment worked...
That would only be true if they had credited him with coming up with the phrase, which MMFA did not do and, in fact, they provided the full context. I don't know what TFA said specifically.

....or, for that matter, who "TFA" is.

eta: From what I've seen, all that Limbaugh's experiment showed is that his critics aren't stupid. I'd be tempted to extrapolate further about who it did show was stupid, but that might be stretching it.

[billydkid]

"So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate."

Russ, you're a great American. No, wait, what's that other word?

Douche.The man is simply beneath contempt and O'Reilly is not far behind.

[thaiboxerken]

Rush's point is absolutely stupid. So what if another paper came up with the term, that doesn't mean he's any less racist for using the term himself.

[Upchurch]

(rather than eta2 myself)

That would only be true if they had credited him with coming up with the phrase, which MMFA did not do and, in fact, they provided the full context. I don't know what TFA said specifically.

I have to wonder how many other people will conclude that Limbaugh "got" MMFA simply because they wrote an article on what he said rather than realizing that they didn't fall for his bait? I'm guessing that most of his listeners won't bother to look into it, which is probably what he was counting on.

[corplinx]

That would only be true if they had credited him with coming up with the phrase, which MMFA did not do and, in fact, they provided the full context. I don't know what TFA said specifically.

....or, for that matter, who "TFA" is.


TFA stands for "The Fantastic Article". Its a cousin of RTFM or "Read the Fantastic Manual".

In this case, Limbaugh was betting his usage of the term would be noted whereas the original hadn't created a stir. He said that he would own the term and indeed even though MMFA puts it fully in context, their headline creates a different impression.

[Upchurch]

He said that he would own the term and indeed even though MMFA puts it fully in context, their headline creates a different impression.

'Latching onto L.A. Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro"' implies that it's Limbaugh's term?

[corplinx]

'Latching onto L.A. Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro"' implies that it's Limbaugh's term?

Sorry, even though I read TFA, I got its headline and the title of this thread "Limbaugh sings "Obama the Magic negro"" confused.

[Upchurch]

I'd be lying if I said that's never happened to me. :o

[steverino]

What is the question here, I mean, the point of this thread? Limbaugh has supported black candidates, female candidates, all kinds of shapes and sizes of candidates, as long as he believes in their message.

So is this fuss all about "Imus got canned, so let's get Rush fired?" Because the truth is that in America a candidate's religion, gender, race, height, and hair style are used as a measuring stick by voters, for better or worse, usually worse. Clearly Obama's race plays an enormous role in how he is being scrutinized by potential voters and donors. It is fair game for Limbaugh to mock the sanctimony of those caught in Obama's spell due to his race.

And again, again, again, if you don't like the radio show, don't listen.

[The Painter]

Rush's point is absolutely stupid. So what if another paper came up with the term, that doesn't mean he's any less racist for using the term himself.


Are you saying that the newspaper is also racist?

[Dr Adequate]

If you read TFA from MMA, its actually very precise highlighting that Limbaugh thought the original op-ed was BS since it was asserting that white people want to vote for Obama to assuage white guilt.

Clearly Obama's race plays an enormous role in how he is being scrutinized by potential voters and donors. It is fair game for Limbaugh to mock the sanctimony of those caught in Obama's spell due to his race.

Could Limbaugh's defenders try to agree on what he was trying to say?

My two cents: he took a technical term, the definition of which was clearly given, and has turned it into a childish racial jibe by constant and derogatory usage.

His critics are aware that the phrase was coined by the LA Times, so he loses his bet; and they realise that the writer of the op-ed was not being a whining boring racist tosser and that Limbaugh is.

[Upchurch]

What is the question here, I mean, the point of this thread? Limbaugh has supported black candidates, female candidates, all kinds of shapes and sizes of candidates, as long as he believes in their message.
Who are you referring to?


So is this fuss all about "Imus got canned, so let's get Rush fired?"
No.

[Dr Adequate]

Are you saying that the newspaper is also racist? No, Russ Limbaugh is. Alternately with using the phrase himself in a way that is actually racist. Because he's filth.

[The Painter]

So Dr A, you answer for other people now?

It is a parody. What does Obama think?

OBAMA: (Laughing.) You know, I have not heard it but I've heard of it. I confess that I don't listen to Rush on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm not one of these people who -- who takes myself so seriously that I get offended by -- by every -- every comment made about me. You know, the -- you know, what Rush does is entertainment, and although it's probably not something that I listen to much, I don't --

PAUL W. SMITH: But you said not every day, so you do listen a little then, and why wouldn't you?

OBAMA: I don't mind. I don't mind -- I don't mind folks poking fun at me. That's part of the job.

At least he understands more than you guys do.

By the way, was it racist when Joe Biden said “it's great, we finally have a black candidate that's "clean and articulate" running for president.” Sounds racist to me. I’m sure Al Sharpton didn’t like it. He ran for president once.

[WildCat]

Wow, how some people don't get the point. The song was a parody (and sung by an Al Sharpton imitator, not by Limbaugh) of the media wondering if Obama was "black enough" to gain the support of blacks in the election. It was inspired primarily by this op-ed (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center) in the LA Times by David Ehrenstein, and also the recent Joe Biden incident (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/) where he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". This caused a minor flap with (among others) Al Sharpton, who told Biden "I take a bath every day" before accepting his apology.

The uproar over this, and all the self-rightous chest-beating over it, is patently ridiculous.

[Upchurch]

Wow, how some people don't get the point.
Apparently, what Limbaugh's point is depends on who you ask. When you guys figure it out, let me know.

[Puppycow]

Wow. That's deep.

Even though I hate Limbaugh and support Obama, I suppose I have to tip my hat to him for sheer Coulterian self-promotional diabolical genius.

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia [].

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic -- embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

The LA Times editorial is rather stupid because it conflates categories (fictional characters with real people: Majic Johnson is just a nickname).
Now I have to ask myself if I'm just trying to assuage my white guilt. I suppose I can't deny that's part of it, but maybe there is an important purpose to white guilt.

[rtalman]

Who are you referring to?Off of the top of my head, Limbaugh is on record having supported politically:
Herman Cain
Alan Keyes
Elizabeth Dole
Condoleeza Rice
Clarence Thomas
Katherine Harris

Also, Walter Williams is a frequent guest host, and Michael Medved got his start in radio guest hosting for Rush.

[Dr Adequate]

So Dr A, you answer for other people now? When you ask what someone is saying, and we can both see perfectly well what he's saying, then I can in fact tell you what he's saying.

It is a parody. Why do you say that?

What does Obama think? What he says.

Which is that it is poking fun at him, not at the LA Times.

At least he understands more than you guys do. You'll have to be more specific.

By the way, was it racist when Joe Biden said “it's great, we finally have a black candidate that's "clean and articulate" running for president.” Sounds racist to me. I’m sure Al Sharpton didn’t like it. He ran for president once. On this subject, it seems we are in agreement.

So when Limbaugh says that you can't be a "real black" if you're "clean and articulate" ... ?

[a_unique_person]

Wow. That's deep.

Even though I hate Limbaugh and support Obama, I suppose I have to tip my hat to him for sheer Coulterian self-promotional diabolical genius.



By which he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets to trash Obama and accuse the left of being the people who actaully did it, while completely ignoring the actual content of the article.

[slingblade]

Now I have to ask myself if I'm just trying to assuage my white guilt. I suppose I can't deny that's part of it, but maybe there is an important purpose to white guilt.

Why does it have to be "guilt?" I rather think the term is emotionally loaded, and that, deliberately. Makes it easier to use it in a negative way against people who are simply acknowledging certain problems still need remedy.

[Skeptic Guy]

So Dr A, you answer for other people now?

It is a parody. What does Obama think?



At least he understands more than you guys do.

By the way, was it racist when Joe Biden said “it's great, we finally have a black candidate that's "clean and articulate" running for president.” Sounds racist to me. I’m sure Al Sharpton didn’t like it. He ran for president once.

I think the reason that this wasn't perceived as parody (as it seems to have been intended) was that it wasn't funny. Had it accomplished the funny test, it might have worked. But then for it to have seemed funny, Limbaugh would have had to gotten over his image as a douche. An impossible task, IMO. Not that I want him fired or sanctioned, or whatever. I believe in the freedom of speech, even if Limbaugh doesn't.

Biden has nothing to do with this so I am not sure why he is being brought into it. And I haven't seen anyone here defend what he said either. What he said was racist and if I had been planning to vote for him, that quote would certainly make we take a second look.

Wow. That's deep.

Even though I hate Limbaugh and support Obama, I suppose I have to tip my hat to him for sheer Coulterian self-promotional diabolical genius.



The LA Times editorial is rather stupid because it conflates categories (fictional characters with real people: Majic Johnson is just a nickname).
Now I have to ask myself if I'm just trying to assuage my white guilt. I suppose I can't deny that's part of it, but maybe there is an important purpose to white guilt.

So that quote from Wikipedia suggests that any African-American actor that comes across as anything other than a hip-hop artist, drug dealer, or violence-prone gang member, is a "Magic Negro"? A person who assuages guilt over slavery? I think that's the root of the problem right there.

And we all know we can use some more "Coulterian self-promotional diabolical genius'.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Racist or parody, it's funny either way.

[The Painter]

Ehrenstein concluded: "Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."

There it is. The LA Times said Obama is not a real black man. What is there idea of a real black man? They seem to have a preconceived notion what a black man must be, and that is racist to the core.

You have proved Limbaugh’s hypothesis. You call him a racist, but not the LA Times.

they can’t be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio.”

Congratulations.

[Dr Adequate]

There it is. The LA Times said Obama is not a real black man. What is there idea of a real black man? They seem to have a preconceived notion what a black man must be, and that is racist to the core. Way to misread a simple passage of prose.

They aren't disputing that he's really black, and certainly not on the grounds that he's "clean and articulate", they're disputing whether he's substance or just image.

You have proved Limbaugh’s hypothesis. You call him a racist, but not the LA Times. So now that's what he's trying to say?

Well, you've finally thought of an opinion for him which is true: I do indeed say Limbaugh's childish antics are indeed racist, and that the op ed in the LA Times was not.

The LA Times did not say this:

"So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate."

Limbaugh did.

If the LA Times had said that, I would call them racist.

If Limbaugh will further "hypothesise" that I think that 2 and 2 make 4, then I guess I'll prove him right once again.

[WildCat]

Apparently, what Limbaugh's point is depends on who you ask. When you guys figure it out, let me know.
It seems pretty obvious when you hear it. I can only assume those who think this is somehow Limbaugh's POV haven't heard it.

It's about the belief from some black activists that Obama "isn't black enough", and the belief by some whites (such as Joe Biden) that Obama is white enough (what a nice clean articulate black man!) to get elected by whites.

This is a matter of debate within the Democratic Party, not by the Republicans. It is certainly not Limbaugh who is questioning whether Obama is black enough to get the black vote, or white enough to get the white votes in the primaries.

And I have to admit, Sharpton singing through a bullhorn is funny to me. But I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary.

[rtalman]

Way to misread a simple passage of prose.

They aren't disputing that he's really black, and certainly not on the grounds that he's "clean and articulate", they're disputing whether he's substance or just image.


Just curious: Is Salon.com disputing that Obama is really black?

Obama isn't black. "Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/

[WildCat]

Is Obama Black Enough? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html)

Is Obama black enough? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2023808,00.html)

Is Obama Black Enough? (http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/obama.php)

Black Like Me? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501270.html)

Is Obama black enough for blacks to support? (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/04/is_obama_black_.html)

'Black enough'? Enough's enough (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/annette_john-hall/20070330_Annette_John-Hall___Black_enough__Enoughs_enough.html)

Yep, those are right-wing Republicans asking that question... :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

There it is. The LA Times said Obama is not a real black man. What is there idea of a real black man? They seem to have a preconceived notion what a black man must be, and that is racist to the core.

You have proved Limbaugh’s hypothesis. You call him a racist, but not the LA Times.



Congratulations.

He is not talking about Obama the person, but Obama the phenomenon, Rush is just too stupid to understand the point of the story. The modern media process made the 'star', or 'magic' person, a reality back in the golden age of the silent film. Just look at all the celebrity magazines and paparazzi these days. They have nothing to do with the focus of their subject as real, living breathing individuals, but as something beyond mortals.

Is Obama liked because of his real qualities, whatever they are, or just because it makes some people feel good that they are supporting a black man, who has the 'magic' quality that makes him acceptable to whites? I think the article is patronising to all concerned, I'm guessing there are white people who like him because he's talented and performs well as a politician, but it's not calling him 'magic'. Condi Rice has already demonstrated a black person can achieve a lot in a conservative, Republican administration because they are talented, nothing to do with their colour. If she wasn't as clever as she is, she wouldn't be in her job.

I'm betting Rush enjoyed every minute of that day.

[Dr Adequate]

Just curious: Is Salon.com disputing that Obama is really black? Apparently.

In which they may demonstrate themselves to be completely nuts, but at least their stated criterion for being black is descent from slaves, not being dirty and inarticulate. That link was forged in the grubby and sulfurous furnace of Mr Limbaugh's mind.

[Skeptic Guy]

There it is. The LA Times said Obama is not a real black man. What is there idea of a real black man? They seem to have a preconceived notion what a black man must be, and that is racist to the core.

You have proved Limbaugh’s hypothesis. You call him a racist, but not the LA Times.



Congratulations.

Ehrenstein, a black writer, is a free-lance columnist that is published in many media outlets throughout the US and not only for the LA Times. What he wrote was an Op-Ed piece. Columnists are encouraged to write their opinions (OP-ED) and what they write may not necessarily be the view or opinion of the newspaper in which it was published.

I don't agree with what he wrote, but that's ok. It's his right to say what he wants, and I don't think he intended it to be racist. His perceived problem with Obama is that he doesn't think he's "black enough" and if he was "black enough" us old white guys wouldn't vote for him. I think he's wrong in many ways but that's ok, he's not using it in the same manner as Limbaugh.

ETA: And as Dr. Adequate says, he doesn't see the substance behind Obama.

[corplinx]

Limbaugh is actually not trashing Obama. He thinks the not-black-enough is nonsense. Give the "sultan of vicodin" a break on this one.

[corplinx]

Btw, on the topic of the Magic Negro. This similar concept was used by wrestling promoter Bill Watts who was known for promoting black "baby faces" in the deep south versus white heels. Junk Yard Dog, Ernie Ladd, Butch Reed, and others.

[WildCat]

Limbaugh is actually not trashing Obama. He thinks the not-black-enough is nonsense. Give the "sultan of vicodin" a break on this one.
Exactly. He's making fun of the racism bubbling to the surface among Dems arguing about the blackness of Obama through a parody song. But apparently if the humor hits too close to home you fail to see it.

[Meadmaker]

I think you all missed the point.


Sadly, I have to agree. Rush said that if he used the phrase several times, he would own it.

If Rush had been wrong, this thread would have been entitled, "Ehrenstein calls Obama a 'Magic Negro'".

[a_unique_person]

Sadly, I have to agree. Rush said that if he used the phrase several times, he would own it.

If Rush had been wrong, this thread would have been entitled, "Ehrenstein calls Obama a 'Magic Negro'".

Except that he didn't. Rush did, and had a great time doing so, the highlight being the song.

[rtalman]

Exactly. He's making fun of the racism bubbling to the surface among Dems arguing about the blackness of Obama through a parody song. But apparently if the humor hits too close to home you fail to see it.
I don't know if it is racism by the Dems, the articles in question all seem to have been written by other African Americans. The way I see it, they are either a) asking legitimate questions about what it means to be "black" (i.e. is color the defining characteristic or is blackness really more than skin deep?) or, b) the Clinton press agents are pushing these stories to try to peel away some of the black vote from Obama (the assumption that the blacks are a monolithic voting block and don't critically examine a candidate's position may be racist in itself).

[thaiboxerken]

Are you saying that the newspaper is also racist?

Is the newspaper calling Obama "the magic negro" or are they simply reporting about someone else saying it? Rush is clearly adopting the term that he thinks the newspaper came up with; so, by adopting it, that makes it his. If Rush kept it so just talking about the other newspaper using the term, then I could see that he wasn't being racist. By using the term himself, to demean black people, it makes it racist.

[Axiom_Blade]

or, b) the Clinton press agents are pushing these stories to try to peel away some of the black vote from Obama (the assumption that the blacks are a monolithic voting block and don't critically examine a candidate's position may be racist in itself).

Haha.
Naw, the Democrats see everybody that way.

[Axiom_Blade]

Wow, what convoluted logic. Here's what I could make out of this:

"All of you white people who support Obama are racists, see, because he's not a real black.... But he IS a real black, it's just that you LEFTISTS don't think that he is, see! That makes you the REAL racists! That's why a liberal paper can make this blatantly racist comment and be ignored, but if I pick it up and start using it, they'll be all over me like a pack of wolves, see! But the joke will be on them, haha!!"

(The real joke being that his fans will see it as a "parody" or "satire" and not "Rush being an attention whore".)

Sheesh. I hope the media does pick this up and run with it. As if the right-wingers need anything to make them look worse.

Of course, all you white folks who support Obama should quit that right away, because Rush has already outed you as BIGOTS.

[Puppycow]

Is the newspaper calling Obama "the magic negro" or are they simply reporting about someone else saying it? Rush is clearly adopting the term that he thinks the newspaper came up with; so, by adopting it, that makes it his. If Rush kept it so just talking about the other newspaper using the term, then I could see that he wasn't being racist. By using the term himself, to demean black people, it makes it racist.

Neither. OP-Eds are the opinions of individuals, which are published, but not endorsed by newspapers. No-one thinks Jonah Goldberg's OP-Eds are the LA Times speaking, although they are published in the LA Times.

[thaiboxerken]

Then, puppycow, Rush is simply adopting the term used by an individual and making it his own racist rant. The LA times simply published an editorital.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I listened to the whole clip and didn't hear the song...

[Wowbagger]

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very often. Does he usually belabor the point like that?

[Tailgater]

I heard the song, but not about owning the word. Sounded more like a rip on Sharpton to me. I thought the song had something to do with what Sharpton said about Obama. It was definitely a parody of it.

[LostAngeles]

Why does it have to be "guilt?" I rather think the term is emotionally loaded, and that, deliberately. Makes it easier to use it in a negative way against people who are simply acknowledging certain problems still need remedy.

Clearly you've never been on the receiving end of those who feel the need to treat you like a fragile little special flower who could only blossom were it not for every other white person holding them down. At times, it's the equivalent of being told that you, on your own, aren't good enough. You really don't have the skill set or the talents or the potential. Instead, this wonderful white person will hold your hand and lift you up amongst the clouds. Have you ever been told that you're not good enough, that it's just that your skin happens to be darker, or that your hair is curlier, or that lips are a bit fuller is what makes you special and not you yourself. Not your hopes, your dreams, your loves, your fears, your experiences, and your opinions, but for how much melanin those six genes are telling your cells to produce. I don't know about you, but being coddled is a load of ********.

Are there still problems? Yes, absolutely, but I'd prefer we work towards treating people as people and not as an ethnic group. Ethnicity plays a role in developing identity but ethnicity is not identity.

But frankly, the only reason I'd rather deal with someone suffering from the shame and horror of having been born white and middle-class than someone who hates all other races.

And that's only because the former isn't interested in inducing harm. So far as I'm concerned, both can **** off and die.

[Skeptic Guy]

Exactly. He's making fun of the racism bubbling to the surface among Dems arguing about the blackness of Obama through a parody song. But apparently if the humor hits too close to home you fail to see it.

Where is the supposed argument between the Dems about the blackness of Obama? I hear it from the right trying to apply it to the Dems, but other than that, nada.

[thaiboxerken]

Where is the supposed argument between the Dems about the blackness of Obama? I hear it from the right trying to apply it to the Dems, but other than that, nada.

Probably some thug said something to the effect of "Obama ain't black enough." That's enough for the conservamedia to say that liberals are in a heated debate about Obama's "blackness." Personally, I could care less about his skin color, it's his stance on the issues that I like.

[WildCat]

Skeptic Guy and thaiboxerken, perhaps post #39 does not show up on your browsers? That was just the tip of the iceberg, I could post many more if you're not convinced...

[thaiboxerken]

Skeptic Guy and thaiboxerken, perhaps post #39 does not show up on your browsers?

Sure it does, but the shotgun approach to debate doesn't phase me in the slightest. Maybe SOME liberals don't think Obama isn't black enough, but data-mining is a tactic that many conspiracy theorists use as well.

[WildCat]

Sure it does, but the shotgun approach to debate doesn't phase me in the slightest. Maybe SOME liberals don't think Obama isn't black enough, but data-mining is a tactic that many conspiracy theorists use as well.
It's clearly an issue among Dems. That was just part of page 1 of a google search. Try it yourself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bobama+%2B%22black+enough%22&btnG=Google+Search).

Denial of facts is also a trait of conspiracy theorists.

[steverino]

Could Limbaugh's defenders try to agree on what he was trying to say?

Can one be a "Limbaugh defender" without digging his rap by taking the position that he is entitled to say whatever he wants?

[a_unique_person]

Can one be a "Limbaugh defender" without digging his rap by taking the position that he is entitled to say whatever he wants?

No one has said he can't. Clearly in this case, he was trying to make sure he created as much controversy as he could, presumably for ratings, by being obnoxious by misrepresenting what one columnist said.

It's like me accusing all the conservatives here of believing everything Coulter says.













I'm assuming they don't, of course.

[thaiboxerken]

It's clearly an issue among Dems.

I am pretty sure you're correct, but only because Reps only care if he's black at all.....

[Klaymore]

Could Limbaugh's defenders try to agree on what he was trying to say?

Hell no. This forum proves that two (or thousands) of people can agree on a basic principle without agreeing on anything else. Some of the exchanges between yourself and The Athiest demonstrate this.

My two cents: he took a technical term, the definition of which was clearly given, and has turned it into a childish racial jibe by constant and derogatory usage.

Your two cents are (is), as in your other posts that I have read, cogently stated and philosophically defensible. I don't happen to agree with it (them... the two cents... whatever) upon a first hearing of the broadcast, but my jury is still out. (Is that a mixed metaphor?)

His critics are aware that the phrase was coined by the LA Times, so he loses his bet; and they realise that the writer of the op-ed was not being a whining boring racist tosser and that Limbaugh is.

Again, based on a first hearing: I took Rush's point to be that the term "Magic Negro" was racist on its face, as well as in the underlying philosophy of its very inception. I took the supposition that people would ascribe the term to him to be mere hyperbole, with the broader intent being to draw attention to hipocracy.

As to whether or not he is a racist--however one defines and applies that oft-used pejorative--he has supported his share of minority candidates. Perhaps he is a racist in his heart, just as Christianity tells us that we are all besmirched by original sin, and that simply behaving like good people will not save us from eternal flame. I consider his support for candidates who agree with him philosophically despite their race to be adequate evidence that he is not, in the aggregate, a racist.

But I do, after reading the op-ed piece which Rush lampoons, completely disagree with you that that writer was not being a "whining boring racist tosser... ." The op-ed piece shrieks to me of whining, boring, racist tossing. It infuriates me and sickens me, much as I imagine Rush's commentary affected you. Perhaps that says more about our respective preconceptions than it does about the content of either the op-ed piece or Rush's diatribe.

[Skeptic Guy]

It's clearly an issue among Dems. That was just part of page 1 of a google search. Try it yourself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bobama+%2B%22black+enough%22&btnG=Google+Search).

Denial of facts is also a trait of conspiracy theorists.

So far all I am seeing are articles in the general media about his "blackness" and some of that discussion a result of dear Mr. Limbaugh's shenanigans. There aren't any discussion from the "Dems" regarding Obama and whether he's "black enough".

And why you can't keep the discussion civil without getting into "conspiracy theorists" comments?

[NoZed Avenger]

And why you can't keep the discussion civil without getting into "conspiracy theorists" comments?


Perhaps you should ask the poster that actually introduced that subject, and not the one that responded to it?

[Tailgater]

Sure it does, but the shotgun approach to debate doesn't phase me in the slightest. Maybe SOME liberals don't think Obama isn't black enough, but data-mining is a tactic that many conspiracy theorists use as well.

And why you can't keep the discussion civil without getting into "conspiracy theorists" comments?

The comment was a response to this. Funny it's even being debated here, since it has been a talking point on every idiot news show for weeks now.

[ponderingturtle]

Apparently, what Limbaugh's point is depends on who you ask. When you guys figure it out, let me know.

Hey, the real point was that with all this recent talk about Imus and such how was he going to reassert his position as the bad boy of political talk.

So it is a publicity stunt, and it worked.

[ponderingturtle]

Is Obama Black Enough? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html)

Is Obama black enough? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2023808,00.html)

Is Obama Black Enough? (http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/obama.php)

Black Like Me? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501270.html)

Is Obama black enough for blacks to support? (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/04/is_obama_black_.html)

'Black enough'? Enough's enough (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/annette_john-hall/20070330_Annette_John-Hall___Black_enough__Enoughs_enough.html)

Yep, those are right-wing Republicans asking that question... :rolleyes:


Yep, I can tell that they are saying he is too clean to be a real black man.

[ponderingturtle]

Condi Rice has already demonstrated a black person can achieve a lot in a conservative, Republican administration because they are talented, nothing to do with their colour. If she wasn't as clever as she is, she wouldn't be in her job.


I question the idea that competence is the primary factor that this administration depends on for assigning its postions. It seems to be personal loyalty in being a "Good Bushy"

[ponderingturtle]

Haha.
Naw, the Democrats see everybody that way.

Wrong, Politicians see everyone that way.

[ponderingturtle]

It's clearly an issue among Dems. That was just part of page 1 of a google search. Try it yourself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bobama+%2B%22black+enough%22&btnG=Google+Search).

Denial of facts is also a trait of conspiracy theorists.

And it is an issue among Reps. that we need to encourage war in the middle east to create the situation needed for the rapture. So they want Iraq in a civil war, and to start a war that will drag on and on with Iran. More deaths are what the republican party wants.

Now that we are done generalizing what the loonies on both sides are saying can we deal with real issues?

[ponderingturtle]

Can one be a "Limbaugh defender" without digging his rap by taking the position that he is entitled to say whatever he wants?

That is a straw man position, as no one is saying he can't say it. Now he could have a rant about the "F@&king N{66ers" as well and he would be entitled to say that, well the FCC would take issues with it, but as long as he was off the air it woul be fine.

But we are also entitled to say when he is makeing a racist comment as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, for two reasons, I believe he should be referred to as an enema bag.
1) Douchebag may tend to be sexist. AND
2) Like my suggestion, he brings out the srule8 onto everyone.

I dissagree, there is no room around is head to get an enema in there.

[Snide]

Btw, on the topic of the Magic Negro. This similar concept was used by wrestling promoter Bill Watts who was known for promoting black "baby faces" in the deep south versus white heels. Junk Yard Dog, Ernie Ladd, Butch Reed, and others.Two points awarded to corplinx for this post! :)

(Snide only had Rufus R. "Railroad" Jones to cheer for in the AWA)

[steverino]

That is a straw man position, as no one is saying he can't say it. Now he could have a rant about the "F@&king N{66ers" as well and he would be entitled to say that, well the FCC would take issues with it, but as long as he was off the air it woul be fine.

But we are also entitled to say when he is makeing a racist comment as well.

:confused: I asked a question. I did not take a position.

[Dr Adequate]

Can one be a "Limbaugh defender" without digging his rap by taking the position that he is entitled to say whatever he wants? No.

[The Painter]

No.

Why not?

[Dr Adequate]

Why not? Because saying that Limbaugh has a constitutional right to be a jerk is different from saying that he's not a jerk.

[The Painter]

Oh, I get it. He can't be right, not even once. Just because someone is a jerk, doesn't mean they are always wrong. They can be right, and still be a jerk.

[LostAngeles]

Because saying that Limbaugh has a constitutional right to be a jerk is different from saying that he's not a jerk.

Oh, I get it. He can't be right, not even once. Just because someone is a jerk, doesn't mean they are always wrong. They can be right, and still be a jerk.

I don't think that's what Doc was saying. Limbaugh is a jerk. He has the right to do so. He may even be right.

For comparison:

Randi is a jerk. Randi has the right to do so. Oftimes, Randi is right.

Hitchens is a drunken jerk. Hitchens has the right to do so, no matter how his liver may protest. Hitchens is right sometimes.

Dr. Adequate is a poet and by definition, worse than a jerk. Dr. A has the right, and when I find out who gave out such a right... *ahem* Dr. A actually manages to create the rare creature known as good poetry.

I wonder if maybe Dr. A is defining, "Limbaugh Defender," to be one that not only asserts Limbaugh's right, but asserts that Limbaugh is correct. (Because I almost wrote, "Limbaugh's right," twice with two different meaning and I don't want to muddy the waters further.)

Because with Limbaugh, Coulter, and Rosie, I take the Voltaire stance, I wish that they would shut the f*** up and fade into obscurity, but I will defend their right to do otherwise.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, I get it. Evidently not.

If you really want to understand my meaning, you should pay more attention to what I actually write and less attention to the voices in your head.

[Dancing David]

Sorry, even though I read TFA, I got its headline and the title of this thread "Limbaugh sings "Obama the Magic negro"" confused.

Now that was me, looking a for a catchy headline, not MMFA although I think I stole it from them. Us liberals are like that.

Actualy I am a wierd duck, a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

[Dancing David]

What is the question here, I mean, the point of this thread? Limbaugh has supported black candidates, female candidates, all kinds of shapes and sizes of candidates, as long as he believes in their message.

So is this fuss all about "Imus got canned, so let's get Rush fired?" Because the truth is that in America a candidate's religion, gender, race, height, and hair style are used as a measuring stick by voters, for better or worse, usually worse. Clearly Obama's race plays an enormous role in how he is being scrutinized by potential voters and donors. It is fair game for Limbaugh to mock the sanctimony of those caught in Obama's spell due to his race.

And again, again, again, if you don't like the radio show, don't listen.

I quoted it because the article alleged that Rush sang the song? And said that he would own the term, in some sort of hope he would get a rise out of people?

[Dancing David]

Wow, how some people don't get the point. The song was a parody (and sung by an Al Sharpton imitator, not by Limbaugh) of the media wondering if Obama was "black enough" to gain the support of blacks in the election. It was inspired primarily by this op-ed (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center) in the LA Times by David Ehrenstein, and also the recent Joe Biden incident (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/) where he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". This caused a minor flap with (among others) Al Sharpton, who told Biden "I take a bath every day" before accepting his apology.

The uproar over this, and all the self-rightous chest-beating over it, is patently ridiculous.

Really , way cool! I will have to write MMFA and tell them that thier fact checker blew it. Do you have a source for the words, I don't think MMFA chose to print them.

The chest beating was more exciting than what i expected, I think Rush is an entertainer.

[Dancing David]

There it is. The LA Times said Obama is not a real black man. What is there idea of a real black man? They seem to have a preconceived notion what a black man must be, and that is racist to the core.

.

A real black man wear a kilt?


This is a weekly conversation at school when a student says "You ain't talkin like youse black."

[Dancing David]

Sadly, I have to agree. Rush said that if he used the phrase several times, he would own it.

If Rush had been wrong, this thread would have been entitled, "Ehrenstein calls Obama a 'Magic Negro'".


Quite true, but I didn't hear the song, it sounds funny.

BTW: Rush did allegedly state he wanted to own the term.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps you should ask the poster that actually introduced that subject, and not the one that responded to it?

I thought it would spark debate, I WIN!

[LostAngeles]

I thought it would spark debate, I WIN!

No, you lose.

The correct statement is, "I won this debate." See: 1inChrist, Hellfire tag.

Edit: See Scrut's use here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2584873#post2584873

I'm not too clear on the proper tense of the verb, I guess, but you could at least get the general statement right.

[slingblade]

Clearly you've never been on the receiving end of those who feel the need to treat you like a fragile little special flower who could only blossom were it not for every other white person man holding them down.

No. I haven't had that done to me because of race, because I'm white, and therefore privileged. My race is invisible, or negligible, or not really a race.

I have been treated in a similar way, on occasion, because I own a pair of large sweat glands on my chest, so I could say I have had the barest taste of that kind of treatment. It doesn't compare, I know. But I have a slight clue. Is why I changed your quote.

I liked the South Park episode about N***** Guy, and Kyle's little "ah-ha" speech at the end: "I get it now, Token: I don't get it."

I don't get it. I know that. But in a general sense, I can still sort of relate. Enough to be able to say "this sucks. I wish we treated each other better."

At times, it's the equivalent of being told that you, on your own, aren't good enough. You really don't have the skill set or the talents or the potential. Instead, this wonderful white person will hold your hand and lift you up amongst the clouds. Have you ever been told that you're not good enough, that it's just that your skin happens to be darker, or that your hair is curlier, or that lips are a bit fuller is what makes you special and not you yourself. Not your hopes, your dreams, your loves, your fears, your experiences, and your opinions, but for how much melanin those six genes are telling your cells to produce. I don't know about you, but being coddled is a load of ********.

I agree. I hope I've never done that. It's just as bad as being held back for those same things. Maybe worse, in some ways.

Are there still problems? Yes, absolutely, but I'd prefer we work towards treating people as people and not as an ethnic group. Ethnicity plays a role in developing identity but ethnicity is not identity.

Right. I run into the problem of both trying to understand and trying to explain the difference, all the time. Simplified statements do not work in this sort of dialogue. You can't say something like "Race isn't real, but its effects are," and not get into a six-hour eventual screaming match.

But frankly, the only reason I'd rather deal with someone suffering from the shame and horror of having been born white and middle-class than someone who hates all other races.

And that's only because the former isn't interested in inducing harm. So far as I'm concerned, both can **** off and die.

When I first wake up in the morning, I'm not really awake. I need about an hour, and two cups of coffee. I'm in the same stage with several social issues right now. The hidden, sub-level problems have only just been brought to my awareness. I'm still trying to figure out what to do about them, and still marveling at how they were there this whole time, and how easy it was to overlook them.

I've chewed my own shoe-leather more times than I care to count in this process. I don't know if your post was a general rant or directed at me. In either case, I'd say "I'm sorry, and I'll try not to be a patronizing jerk in future."

[LostAngeles]

No. I haven't had that done to me because of race, because I'm white, and therefore privileged. My race is invisible, or negligible, or not really a race.

I have been treated in a similar way, on occasion, because I own a pair of large sweat glands on my chest, so I could say I have had the barest taste of that kind of treatment. It doesn't compare, I know. But I have a slight clue. Is why I changed your quote.

I liked the South Park episode about N***** Guy, and Kyle's little "ah-ha" speech at the end: "I get it now, Token: I don't get it."

I don't get it. I know that. But in a general sense, I can still sort of relate. Enough to be able to say "this sucks. I wish we treated each other better."



I agree. I hope I've never done that. It's just as bad as being held back for those same things. Maybe worse, in some ways.



Right. I run into the problem of both trying to understand and trying to explain the difference, all the time. Simplified statements do not work in this sort of dialogue. You can't say something like "Race isn't real, but its effects are," and not get into a six-hour eventual screaming match.



When I first wake up in the morning, I'm not really awake. I need about an hour, and two cups of coffee. I'm in the same stage with several social issues right now. The hidden, sub-level problems have only just been brought to my awareness. I'm still trying to figure out what to do about them, and still marveling at how they were there this whole time, and how easy it was to overlook them.

I've chewed my own shoe-leather more times than I care to count in this process. I don't know if your post was a general rant or directed at me. In either case, I'd say "I'm sorry, and I'll try not to be a patronizing jerk in future."

That...

That's likely the most well-thought out and honest response I've ever seen on this subject. I really appreciate that. I really do. Thank you.

This is a very touchy subject for me as someone who's fought tooth and nail for her identity and has found herself in too many positions where she's being told she needs to be angry at the white man and all white people. In particular, for a while I was very reluctant about attending UCLA after being at one of their programs where this was shoved at me for a week. I was in tears until I looked at my boyfriend, who's white, and said, "Gee you celebrate my good grades, you talk about me getting a doctorate, you're entirely supportive... you're really bad at this whole oppressing thing." "You still get f***ed by the white man, though." :D So yes, it was kind of directed at you while still being general. Sorry about that, but like I said, it's pretty touchy for me.

Heck, ask me about my Humanitites teacher from last summer. :boggled: That guy was a piece of work.

I've got some pretty strong feelings and some thoughts on how our educational system is shortchanging kids and how some of the fixes aren't that great and how I think we could adjust them. If you'd like, when I can truly openly discuss it in a few weeks, I'd be more than happy to exchange thoughts, ideas, and opinions with you.

[EvilSmurf]

How many racist remarks must Limbaugh make before one can call him a racist?
Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

[Skeptic Guy]

Perhaps you should ask the poster that actually introduced that subject, and not the one that responded to it?

Good point. That's what I get for rushing off a response from work.

It was data mining but there is no evidence of a Democratic conspiracy.

In any event I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else they're wrong.

[Dancing David]

No, you lose.

The correct statement is, "I won this debate." See: 1inChrist, Hellfire tag.

Edit: See Scrut's use here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2584873#post2584873

I'm not too clear on the proper tense of the verb, I guess, but you could at least get the general statement right.

I win because I got people to debate? American english is loose.

When i try to win debates I usualy just allienate people.

[Dancing David]

How many racist remarks must Limbaugh make before one can call him a racist?


hey those are out of context, or "He is just being funny".

;)

[Upchurch]

hey those are out of context, or "He is just being funny".

"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding." --They Might Be Giants.

[WildCat]

How many racist remarks must Limbaugh make before one can call him a racist?
I see nothing racist about the first 2 (and Rush was right about McNabb being way overrated), and have no idea what the context was in the last 2.

At any rate, even if he was a hood wearing member of the KKK it wouldn't make the parody song racist. And nobody here has even explained what makes it racist, I guess that's why EvilSmurf decided to poison the well instead of comment on the topic at hand.

[Upchurch]

I see nothing racist about the first 2 (and Rush was right about McNabb being way overrated),You don't see anything racist about claiming that the only reason this quarterback was in the NFL* was because he is black?



eta: * or perhaps, "still in the NFL"

[WildCat]

You don't see anything racist about claiming that the only reason this quarterback was in the NFL* was because he is black?



eta: * or perhaps, "still in the NFL"
If that were what he said I'd agree. But it's not what he said, is it? Now ask yourself why you changed what he said - was it because his actual comment wasn't racist?

[hgc]

I see nothing racist about the first 2 (and Rush was right about McNabb being way overrated), and have no idea what the context was in the last 2.


The 2004 incident, with Donovan McNab, was a pretty stark indicator, at minimum, that Rush is inappropriately obsessed with racial politics. Here we had a situation where an individual athlete was highly successful in a high prestige position (NFL quarterback), and Rush was essentially denegrating his acheivement by claiming that his acclaim was the result of white guilt or some other mass psychological factor, and not his particular acheivement.

It's easy to spot where Rush went wrong: He hasn't, to my knowledge, ever presented any evidence to back his claim. I believe it's strictly a product of his desires to protect his idea of white privilege in a domain where not a large number of blacks have made it.

Why do I say innapropriate? Because he was on a sports show reviewing the weekend's NFL action - as a sports commentator. His injection of racial politics, apropos of nothing whatsoever, was bazarre. It seems he can't distinguish between his own show's audience, which also wants to protect white privilege, and an ESPN wrapup show audience, which wants to hear about football.

I'm not black, but I would bet that almost all black Americans would recognize Rush for a racist based on that performance and the others.

Bush admin officials continue to make appearances there because they already know the GOP, for whom Rush is a leading propagandist, is losing, rather than gaining, black support.

[Upchurch]

If that were what he said I'd agree. But it's not what he said, is it? Now ask yourself why you changed what he said - was it because his actual comment wasn't racist?
uh, what?


Here's what Rush said:
Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

Here is my paraphrase (minus the edit):
You don't see anything racist about claiming that the only reason this quarterback was in the NFL* was because he is black?

In his first sentence, Rush said that this player wasn't very good. In his second sentence, Rush said that there was a "social concern" in the NFL. In the third sentence, Rush points out that the player is black.

How do you interpret what he said?

[WildCat]

Why do I say innapropriate? Because he was on a sports show reviewing the weekend's NFL action - as a sports commentator. His injection of racial politics, apropos of nothing whatsoever, was bazarre. It seems he can't distinguish between his own show's audience, which also wants to protect white privilege, and an ESPN wrapup show audience, which wants to hear about football.
There is a racist history in the NFL about whether black men could make effective QB's, and thus a desire among some to see a black QB do well in order to get past the racist attitudes of the past. That's all Rush was commenting on, in a clumsy effort to explain all the hype over a mediocre QB.

[WildCat]

uh, what?


Here's what Rush said:


Here is my paraphrase (minus the edit):


In his first sentence, Rush said that this player wasn't very good. In his second sentence, Rush said that there was a "social concern" in the NFL. In the third sentence, Rush points out that the player is black.
This interpretation makes no sense, because "the NFL" didn't hire McNab, the Philadelphia Eagles did.

How do you interpret what he said?
See my last post.

[LostAngeles]

The 2004 incident, with Donovan McNab, was a pretty stark indicator, at minimum, that Rush is inappropriately obsessed with racial politics. Here we had a situation where an individual athlete was highly successful in a high prestige position (NFL quarterback), and Rush was essentially denegrating his acheivement by claiming that his acclaim was the result of white guilt or some other mass psychological factor, and not his particular acheivement.

It's easy to spot where Rush went wrong: He hasn't, to my knowledge, ever presented any evidence to back his claim. I believe it's strictly a product of his desires to protect his idea of white privilege in a domain where not a large number of blacks have made it.

Why do I say innapropriate? Because he was on a sports show reviewing the weekend's NFL action - as a sports commentator. His injection of racial politics, apropos of nothing whatsoever, was bazarre. It seems he can't distinguish between his own show's audience, which also wants to protect white privilege, and an ESPN wrapup show audience, which wants to hear about football.

I'm not black, but I would bet that almost all black Americans would recognize Rush for a racist based on that performance and the others.

Bush admin officials continue to make appearances there because they already know the GOP, for whom Rush is a leading propagandist, is losing, rather than gaining, black support.

I thought that was the year he did that.

His statement ignored the performance and accolades being heaped upon Steve McNair and Michael Vick. I mean, Ron Mexico. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrAIL9MlWJY)

According to the CNN report when Rush resigned after that:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/
...
McNabb said Wednesday that he didn't mind criticism of his performance, but was upset that Limbaugh made his race an issue and said it was too late for an apology.

"It's somewhat shocking to hear that on national TV from him," McNabb said. "It's not something that I can sit here and say won't bother me."
...

After making a very nice and honest response, you know McNabb did?

He went to the Super Bowl.

Now Rush has gone after Obama, who pretty much laughed off the remark. Looking at Rush's previous record?

Obama will become the Democatic nominee, but lose to the Repubican nominee of The New England Patriots, for which T.O. will take credit for getting that far and then blame everyone else for the loss.

[Upchurch]

This interpretation makes no sense, because "the NFL" didn't hire McNab, the Philadelphia Eagles did.
The Philadelphia Eagles are not in the NFL? (and I didn't say "the NFL" hired whoever this guy is)


See my last post.
There is a racist history in the NFL about whether black men could make effective QB's, and thus a desire among some to see a black QB do well in order to get past the racist attitudes of the past. That's all Rush was commenting on, in a clumsy effort to explain all the hype over a mediocre QB.
In other words, Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the position he was in when another equally qualified (or unqualified, as the case may be) player would not otherwise be kept in that position. Correct?

[thaiboxerken]

I guess that's why EvilSmurf decided to poison the well instead of comment on the topic at hand.

I don't agree. EvilSmurf brings up a valid point, if a guy keeps saying racist things, chances are that his "parody" with slurs about a black guy is with racist intent.

[corplinx]

In other words, Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the position he was in when another equally qualified (or unqualified, as the case may be) player would not otherwise be kept in that position. Correct?

They were describing his hype as an uberstar. They weren't discussing whether or not he was qualified to be a QB.

[Upchurch]

They were describing his hype as an uberstar. They weren't discussing whether or not he was qualified to be a QB.
Okay, semantics then:

Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the amount hype he was receiving when another equally qualified (or unqualified, as the case may be) player would not otherwise be kept in that amount of hype. Correct?

[Stankeye]

Okay, semantics then:

Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the amount hype he was receiving when another equally qualified (or unqualified, as the case may be) player would not otherwise be kept in that amount of hype. Correct?

If you put a period after receiving I think you are correct.

As in " Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the amount hype he was receiving."

Just like the LA Times Op-Ed is stating that Obama may be over-hyped due to his race.

[corplinx]

Okay, semantics then:

Rush was saying that it was the player's race that kept him in the amount hype he was receiving when another equally qualified (or unqualified, as the case may be) player would not otherwise be kept in that amount of hype. Correct?

I believe he was saying the defense was winning games, not McNabb (iirc). Stop stretching so hard to make your original affirmative action type comparison comment seem relevant.

Be big papa cool, not big papa stretch. Its cool man.

And I'll agree with HgC earlier who said it was a stark indicator that Rush is obsessed with racial politics.

[Upchurch]

I believe he was saying the defense was winning games, not McNabb (iirc). Stop stretching so hard to make your original affirmative action type comparison comment seem relevant.

Be big papa cool, not big papa stretch. Its cool man.

"I know those words, but that sign makes no sense." :lisasimps

I'll concede on a general lack of understanding of football.

[Drysdale]

How many racist remarks must Limbaugh make before one can call him a racist?

Originally Posted by Rush, 2004
Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

Upchurch this addresses you as well. You sound like you arent a NFL fan so lemme try this...
McNabb is a good QB. Not nearly a great QB I dont think but a good QB.
He's never led the lg in passing or won a title. When he made the SB he was hyperventillating and throwing up in the huddle on drive that they could have went ahead in last qtr. I dont hold that against him tho, what I go by is this,
the Eagles were 5-5 last yr before Mcnabb went out with injury.
They went 5-1 with backup Garcia subbing for him. If he was great would they have won more without him than with him?
Basically Limbaugh said he was overated which I'm inclined to agree with.
He's a very good QB but not great. That was his point and it's been misconstrued in numerous other ways.

Originally Posted by Rush, 2007
Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

He was remarking on the gangster element there. After scores guys giving throat slash signs, shooting guns,etc. Dont know whats racist about that.


Originally Posted by Rush, 1970s
Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

I'm interested as to where this came from since he's only been on the air since late 80's.

Originally Posted by Rush
Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Have a source for this?


Amazing what you can believe when someone's political ideology is different huh?

[slingblade]

That...

That's likely the most well-thought out and honest response I've ever seen on this subject. I really appreciate that. I really do. Thank you.

You're quite welcome. And thank you.

This is a very touchy subject for me as someone who's fought tooth and nail for her identity and has found herself in too many positions where she's being told she needs to be angry at the white man and all white people.

I do understand about touchy subjects; no worries.

I've got some pretty strong feelings and some thoughts on how our educational system is shortchanging kids and how some of the fixes aren't that great and how I think we could adjust them. If you'd like, when I can truly openly discuss it in a few weeks, I'd be more than happy to exchange thoughts, ideas, and opinions with you.

I'd be thrilled to do so! Thanks! :)

[Klaymore]

How many racist remarks must Limbaugh make before one can call him a racist?

A great question, but it would be more fair to phrase it "How many racist comments must anyone make before one can call them a racist?"

(And before we can answer that question, of course, we have to figure out what constitutes a "racist" comment.

Not to mention that we have to decide whether you can reverse a "racist" comment with a "non-racist" comment, or by some other means.

And then we would still have to acknowledge that--even if you are a racist--you are correct if you make a correct statement. 2+2=4 no matter who is doing the math.)

But screw all of that stuff, because above all, your question just validates what Rush was saying in his broadcast. Rush said that the term Magic Negro is racially offensive, but that others can use it with impunity, while he will be excoriated for using it. About that--whether you agree with his politics, viewpoint, or overall attitude--he was correct.

"Magic Negro" is an offensive, silly term. It is contemptible to give any legitimacy to the idea that BO should have to prove he's "Black Enough," or that anyone's race should play any role whatsoever in any evaluation of them.

That's what I've discerned from reading this thread, without which I would have never heard Rush's comments in the first place. I may not have even ever heard the term "Magic Negro" unless Rush had invented it.

[Upchurch]

Rush said that the term Magic Negro is racially offensive, but that others can use it with impunity, while he will be excoriated for using it. About that--whether you agree with his politics, viewpoint, or overall attitude--he was correct.
I don't think you understand the difference in usage. I finally got around to reading the original op-ed written by Ehrenstein. Ehrenstein was lamenting that nonthreatening subservient black characters are more popular in movies and politics than more realistic strong black people. Limbaugh latched on to one phrase and took it as free license to use it in a childish and insulting way.

It is like the Simpson's episode (what is with me and the Simpson's lately?) where Homer's illegitimate brother shows up and Bart takes it as free license to work the word "bastard" into every other sentence.

[Klaymore]

I don't think you understand the difference in usage. I finally got around to reading the original op-ed written by Ehrenstein. Ehrenstein was lamenting that nonthreatening subservient black characters are more popular in movies and politics than more realistic strong black people. Limbaugh latched on to one phrase and took it as free license to use it in a childish and insulting way.

As I said before, I found Ehrenstein's piece offensive, because it embraced a term (and hence, inferentially, an ideology) that I find offensive.

It is like the Simpson's episode (what is with me and the Simpson's lately?) where Homer's illegitimate brother shows up and Bart takes it as free license to work the word "bastard" into every other sentence.

Hell yes, that's a great episode! But your example proves my point. The term "Bastard" is offensive. Period. So is the other epithet in question. One great device to point out the offensiveness of such terms is to mock their use through parody. The producers of the Simpsons did this using Bart, Mel Brooks did it with his films "Blazing Saddles" and "The Producers," and Rush did it when he coined the term "Magic Negro."

[Upchurch]

Hell yes, that's a great episode! But your example proves my point. The term "Bastard" is offensive. Period.
That doesn't mean that there are no legitimate reasons to discuss it and the role it plays in our society. Heck, in this very thread, we are discussing the term and I would not consider this discussion offensive.

[Klaymore]

That doesn't mean that there are no legitimate reasons to discuss it and the role it plays in our society. Heck, in this very thread, we are discussing the term and I would not consider this discussion offensive.

You are exactly, completely, 100% correct. In fact, your words echo the sage, masterful musings of one other recent poster:

One great device to point out the offensiveness of such terms is to mock their use through parody. The producers of the Simpsons did this using Bart, Mel Brooks did it with his films "Blazing Saddles" and "The Producers," and Rush did it when he coined the term "Magic Negro."

Surely you and such a person--both so wise, so profound, so fond of the Simpsons--must agree that I am right about everything that I have ever said.

[Dr Adequate]

The producers of the Simpsons did this using Bart, Mel Brooks did it with his films "Blazing Saddles" and "The Producers," and Rush did it when he coined the term "Magic Negro." Hold on.

It used to be Rush's point ... amongst some of you guys, anyway ... that Rush didn't coin the term "Magic Negro".

And now it seems Rush is the genius who thought up the phrase, which is bang on.

Could you please get round a table and agree what it was he said and why? Cheers.

[Klaymore]

Hold on.

It used to be Rush's point ... amongst some of you guys, anyway ... that Rush didn't coin the term "Magic Negro".

And now it seems Rush is the genius who thought up the phrase, which is bang on.

Actually, I said twice that Rush coined the phrase...

That's what I've discerned from reading this thread, without which I would have never heard Rush's comments in the first place. I may not have even ever heard the term "Magic Negro" unless Rush had invented it.

... was the first time.

Could you please get round a table and agree what it was he said and why? Cheers.

That was in my earlier post:

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate: Could Limbaugh's defenders try to agree on what he was trying to say?

My Response: Hell no. This forum proves that two (or thousands) of people can agree on a basic principle without agreeing on anything else. Some of the exchanges between yourself and The Athiest demonstrate this.

[Dr Adequate]

I daresay that The Atheist and I could agree that God doesn't exist. Curiously enough, this is not what the two of us argue about.

On the other hand, the people who are unanimous in defending Limbaugh seem to have no idea what he said or why or who said it first or who if anyone he was satirizing. They just agree that whatever he said and whatever he meant and whatever his point was he was right.

I guess he "moves in mysterious ways".

[Drysdale]

I daresay that The Atheist and I could agree that God doesn't exist. Curiously enough, this is not what we're arguing about.

On the other hand, the defenders of Limbaugh seem to have no idea what he said or why or who said it first or who he was satirizing. They just agree that whatever he said and whatever he meant and whatever his point was he was right.

I guess he "works in mysterious ways".

Why are you having such a hard time following this?

Wildcat gave you the link it came from.
Basically, Limbaugh said I'll repeat this and it will be attributed to me because I'm a conservative.

And it is now. Though he's talked about 100 times I bet where he got it from and what he was doing and why.

In a nutshell he's showing how biased the mainstream press can be in case you cant follow along.

I cant explain it much simpler than that.

[EvilSmurf]

Upchurch this addresses you as well. You sound like you arent a NFL fan so lemme try this...
McNabb is a good QB. Not nearly a great QB I dont think but a good QB.
He's never led the lg in passing or won a title. When he made the SB he was hyperventillating and throwing up in the huddle on drive that they could have went ahead in last qtr. I dont hold that against him tho, what I go by is this,
the Eagles were 5-5 last yr before Mcnabb went out with injury.
They went 5-1 with backup Garcia subbing for him. If he was great would they have won more without him than with him?
Basically Limbaugh said he was overated which I'm inclined to agree with.
He's a very good QB but not great. That was his point and it's been misconstrued in numerous other ways.

Limbaugh was not just saying that McNabb is overrated. He was saying McNabb is overrated because he is black. Do you not see a distinction? Secondly, instead of using McNabb's 2006 statistics, let's look at the seasons actually relevant to when Limbaugh made his comment:
2002: 10G 58.4CMP% 6.34Y/A 17TD/6INT
2003: 16G 57.5CMP% 6.73Y/A 16TD/11INT
2004: 15G 64CMP% 8.26Y/A 31TD/8INT
in 2003 he was probably one of the 10 best QBs in the league and in 2004 he was probably one of the two best




Originally Posted by Rush, 1970s
Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

I'm interested as to where this came from since he's only been on the air since late 80's.

Originally Posted by Rush
Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Have a source for this?


Amazing what you can believe when someone's political ideology is different huh?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

[corplinx]

Limbaugh was not just saying that McNabb is overrated. He was saying McNabb is overrated because he is black. Do you not see a distinction? Secondly, instead of using McNabb's 2006 statistics, let's look at the seasons actually relevant to when Limbaugh made his comment:
2002: 10G 58.4CMP% 6.34Y/A 17TD/6INT
2003: 16G 57.5CMP% 6.73Y/A 16TD/11INT
2004: 15G 64CMP% 8.26Y/A 31TD/8INT
in 2003 he was probably one of the 10 best QBs in the league and in 2004 he was probably one of the two best



McNabb's stats for 2003 and 2004 weren't ready yet. Rush was commenting on him 2 games into the season and crediting the previous season's performance on a defensive line composed of both blacks and whites.


From wikipedia:
On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2[34] start to the season:
“ Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.[35] ”

At the time of the comments, McNabb was the highest-paid NFL player in history,[36] and had the NFL's lowest passer rating among starting quarterbacks that season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Sportscasting_career


(he was still an idiot to say that on TV)

[The Painter]

(he was still an idiot to say that on TV)

I think he was still on drugs then.

[Drysdale]

Limbaugh was not just saying that McNabb is overrated. He was saying McNabb is overrated because he is black. Do you not see a distinction? Secondly, instead of using McNabb's 2006 statistics, let's look at the seasons actually relevant to when Limbaugh made his comment:
2002: 10G 58.4CMP% 6.34Y/A 17TD/6INT
2003: 16G 57.5CMP% 6.73Y/A 16TD/11INT
2004: 15G 64CMP% 8.26Y/A 31TD/8INT
in 2003 he was probably one of the 10 best QBs in the league and in 2004 he was probably one of the two best


http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

That is exactly true, he was saying he was overated because he's black.
Is that racist? It's his opinion yes but I'm not even sure thats a racist remark so it may be a moot point. If he had said all black quarterbacks are overated that could be construed as racist I think yea.

But as Corplinx pointed out he was commenting on Mcnabb pre 2004 which was his career year. He had a hell of a year that year true. But before that was he stat wise the best? He was third in TD's that year to Manning who had 49, and Culpepper who had 39. By the way Culpepper's black FYI so a case can be made he wasnt even the best black quarterback.

"At the time of the comments, McNabb was the highest-paid NFL player in history, and had the NFL's lowest passer rating among starting quarterbacks that season."


Why was Mcnabb doing the Chunky soup commercials and being heralded as maybe the best QB in some circles when stat wise he clearly was'nt?
That in a nutshell is Rush's point on that I think. You may agre or disagree with it but it's not hard to see his rational.

And was Rush saying that worthy of being terminated? I dont necessarily agree with Rush on Mcnabb, he's a hell of a QB,not the best, but very good.
But I can understand it.



That link is nothing but a bunch of supposedly's and presumptions.
Really nothing substantiating that at all.
And the bone remark is racist anyway? Cavemen many times have bones in their noses and stuff in movies and they are'nt black. Was the person he said it to black? We dont even know that. That's weak.
Try using that as evidence in a court case and see how far you get.

And if he did say the Jesse Jackson remark it is an atypical cutdown of Jackson. He did'nt say all blacks look like they are on wanted posters which would have been racist. IF he said it he said Jackson's name in an attempt to poke fun at him, in which case welcome to the club.
You could make a long list of people he does that too and the majority are white,Clinton,Gore,Hillary just to get started on the list.


I do listen to Rush, I find his show very entertaining and he is very tongue in cheek. Most of what the press runs with is him making a joke about something.
I dont agree with some of his views, but he is entertaining.



Edited for spelling

[DavidJames]

Most of what the press runs with is him making a joke about something.Ah yes, such is the beauty of people like Rush and his supporters. If something he says creates a fuss, well of course it was a joke. :rolleyes:

[Drysdale]

Ah yes, such is the beauty of people like Rush and his supporters. If something he says creates a fuss, well of course it was a joke. :rolleyes:


Do you listen to him? If not then you're really just opposed to his politics and talking out of ignorance then no?

[Klaymore]

Ah yes, such is the beauty of people like Rush and his supporters. If something he says creates a fuss, well of course it was a joke. :rolleyes:

None of which makes the term "Magic Negro," or the concept that Senator Obama should have to prove his "blackness" any less offensive.

The idea that young black kids might worry about being called "The Magic Negro" and mocked for "acting white" when they set out to achieve their dreams just turns my stomach. I believe that Rush was right to parody the use of that awful epithet, and that David Ehrenstein was wrong to embrace it.

The football stuff I leave you guys to sort out amongst yourselves. I'm into sumo, personally, and there's a basho starting in only 4 days...

[Dr Adequate]

I can't see whether Klaymore's being ingenuous or disingenuous, but it seems to be one or the other.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, is definitely being the latter.

[Tailgater]

Limbaugh was not just saying that McNabb is overrated. He was saying McNabb is overrated because he is black. Do you not see a distinction? [/url]

It is very true in the NFL that the media jumps on the black coach or quarterback bandwagon. I live in Indianapolis, and all we heard about was how great it would be for us to have the first black head coach to win a superbowl for weeks before the game. Good thing Dungy was man to underplay it. Although he credited God quite a bit. Every time a black person is successful in historically white person positions, he is hailed as being black on less about individual achievement. That is what I have heard in Rush parodies from both positive and negative angles.

[Klaymore]

I can't see whether Klaymore's being ingenuous or disingenuous, but it seems to be one or the other.

Jesus... I didn't even feel that one go in...

[Drysdale]

It is very true in the NFL that the media jumps on the black coach or quarterback bandwagon. I live in Indianapolis, and all we heard about was how great it would be for us to have the first black head coach to win a superbowl for weeks before the game. Good thing Dungy was man to underplay it. Although he credited God quite a bit. Every time a black person is successful in historically white person positions, he is hailed as being black on less about individual achievement. That is what I have heard in Rush parodies from both positive and negative angles.

That is a great point Tailgater. This year whichever team won would become the first black head coach to win the SB.

Rush spent multitudes of time asking why is it that all the media seems to be talking about is their race?

Why cant they just give the guys props for being the best at what they do in their respective jobs?

In Dungy and Smith's (Bears coach) interviews you could feel their unease when the media kept harping on it in interviews with them. They just wanted to talk about the game.

[Drysdale]

You know, not to derail this thread (I think it may be too late to stop that anyway)but I'm not sure if I'm defending Limbaugh as much as I'm just sick of the political correctness.

I'm just sick and tired of it in general.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama isn't black. "Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. So now I'm wondering. If a White Nationalist shoots Obama under the mistaken impression that he is black --- is that really a hate crime? Or just a tragic case of mistaken identity?

[Dr Adequate]

You know, not to derail this thread (I think it may be too late to stop that anyway)but I'm not sure if I'm defending Limbaugh as much as I'm just sick of the political correctness.

I'm just sick and tired of it in general. Whereas some of us are slightly more sickened by this ...

So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate.

... then by people who say Limbaugh's a jerk.

There's no accounting for taste.

By the way, saying that Limbaugh is a jerk not so much "political correctness" as, well, correctness. As in, being right. He's a jerk.

[hgc]

Rush spent multitudes of time asking why is it that all the media seems to be talking about is their race?


Doesn't that sound just a wee bit odd? I don't know how much the media was talking about it, but I would bet that the very first mention of it rankled Rush. How much time did Rush spend talking about these coaches being black? Was it more or less, by proportion, than any other media sources? And, yes, I'm including any discussion by Rush of media coverage of their race.

[The Painter]

By the way, saying that Limbaugh is a jerk not so much "political correctness" as, well, correctness. As in, being right. He's a jerk

I’m curious. Do you listen to Rush?

[Dr Adequate]

I’m curious. And that's putting it mildly.

Do you listen to Rush? As I am not a citizen of your great and free republic, I have not had that dubious pleasure, and acquire my understanding of his message through other media, such as transcripts of what he says.

And hoo, boy! is he a jerk, or what?

[roger]

Whereas some of us are slightly more sickened by this ...


So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate.

... then by people who say Limbaugh's a jerk.

There's no accounting for taste.
Except Limbaugh was not stating that as his viewpoint, it was a summary of the article, and Biden's comments. He went on to rail against this viewpoint, pointed out that skin color has no bearing on a person's worth, that the use of "magic Negro" is extremely offensive and racist.

I loathe Limbaugh and his radio program, but what in the above do you dislike? What's wrong with pointing out that we shouldn't use skin color as a factor in judging people?

[Drysdale]

And that's putting it mildly.

As I am not a citizen of your great and free republic, I have not had that dubious pleasure, and acquire my understanding of his message through other media, such as transcripts of what he says.

And hoo, boy! is he a jerk, or what?

Is that complete transcripts or just edited ones from liberal sites like moveon.org?

[rtalman]

So now I\\\'m wondering. If a White Nationalist shoots Obama under the mistaken impression that he is black --- is that really a hate crime? Or just a tragic case of mistaken identity?

Hells yeah it\\\'s a hate crime. Scummy bigots will judge anyone by their skintone, their facial features, their name, what kind of beer they drink, what kind of cigarettes they smoke, what kind of car they drive, how they walk, how they speak, etc. and declare them (insert racial, ethnic, or sexuality slur here) Hate crimes fall under intent, not outcome.

[Drysdale]

Doesn't that sound just a wee bit odd? I don't know how much the media was talking about it, but I would bet that the very first mention of it rankled Rush. How much time did Rush spend talking about these coaches being black? Was it more or less, by proportion, than any other media sources? And, yes, I'm including any discussion by Rush of media coverage of their race.

OK, let me first say this. Rush has a tendency to look for anything the media says as biased against republicans and conservatives AND any double standard involving racism,gay rights etc.

I'm going to try and relate what he does here without trying to sound like I'm speaking for him.

In this particular example he was talking about how the media is always talking about how we need to treat everyone equally and have no prejudices
while at the same time always harping about any racial differences or perceived sleights. In this case 2 black head coaches and one of them will be first black head coach to win SB.
And yes, I think everyone got sick of hearing about it (I did also) including the coaches and players. That topic overshadowed the buildup to the game which is hard to do.

Everyone who follows football knew that already, why spend so much time talking about that instead of the game was his point. It was'nt Rosa Parks breaking the color line. It was 2 black football coaches and they were both the best at what they did last year so let them revel in that instead of being beaten down with the race angle basically.


He never misses an opportunity to point out his perceived reporting inequities of main media. Some are valid I think, some he makes something out of nothing. Thats my view.

[The Painter]

And that's putting it mildly.

As I am not a citizen of your great and free republic, I have not had that dubious pleasure, and acquire my understanding of his message through other media, such as transcripts of what he says.

And hoo, boy! is he a jerk, or what?

Oh come on. That's no excuse. You can listen to him anywhere in the world. Right on your computer.

So am I safe in saying you haven't heard the song parody in question?

[steverino]

As I am not a citizen of your great and free republic, I have not had that dubious pleasure, and acquire my understanding of his message through other media, such as transcripts of what he says.

Not one of your strongest responses, Doctor.

By the way, Rush was making fun of Al Sharpton, and of the left's race-obsessed proclivity, not of blacks. In fact, it is many in the Obama fanbase who are prejudice, that is to say, prejudging him based on his race, as his political record is thin. When one says Obama is "refreshing" and "a breath of fresh air," that is code for "Obama is a non-threatening black male."

[hgc]

Not one of your strongest responses, Doctor.

By the way, Rush was making fun of Al Sharpton, and of the left's race-obsessed proclivity, not of blacks. In fact, it is many in the Obama fanbase who are prejudice, that is to say, prejudging him based on his race, as his political record is thin. When one says Obama is "refreshing" and "a breath of fresh air," that is code for "Obama is a non-threatening black male."


I always thought it was code for, "he doesn't have a long record of disagreeable stances, votes and utterances."

[steverino]

I always thought it was code for, "he doesn't have a long record of disagreeable stances, votes and utterances."

Good point. I still say that his physical appearance picks up the slack in his record. I haven't heard him say he will push for gay marriage, he will continue to build the fence on the border, (Richardson will stop it) and his specific health care plan. My girlfriend might vote for him because he is cute, by I need more than that to go on.

[Dr Adequate]

Not one of your strongest responses, Doctor. Explain.

Unless his broadcasts have subliminal messages saying "Limbaugh is not a jerk ... Limbaugh is not a jerk ..." then I am missing nothing by reading his statements instead of listening to them.

He's a jerk.

By the way, Rush was making fun of Al Sharpton ... Oh look, an entirely new theory from Limbaugh's defenders as to what Limbaugh was actually saying.

In fact, it is many in the Obama fanbase who are prejudice, that is to say, prejudging him based on his race, as his political record is thin. When one says Obama is "refreshing" and "a breath of fresh air," that is code for "Obama is a non-threatening black male." That is what the LA Times op ed said. I take it you agree with that. But this claim is exactly what some of Limbaugh's defenders claim that he's opposing.

Could you please get together and decide what position it is he has taken that you're defending?

[Dr Adequate]

Oh come on. That's no excuse. You can listen to him anywhere in the world. Right on your computer.

So am I safe in saying you haven't heard the song parody in question? I refer you to my response to steverino, who is worth my trouble answering.

[Dancing David]

You know, not to derail this thread (I think it may be too late to stop that anyway)but I'm not sure if I'm defending Limbaugh as much as I'm just sick of the political correctness.

I'm just sick and tired of it in general.


Political correctness cuts both ways, it is not limited to the left.

"If you don't support XYZ of President Bush than the terrorists win!"

;)


Or

"Same sex marriage will destroy western civilization." the "Protection of Marriage Act".


:)

[Drysdale]

Political correctness cuts both ways, it is not limited to the left.

"If you don't support XYZ of President Bush than the terrorists win!"

;)


Or

"Same sex marriage will destroy western civilization." the "Protection of Marriage Act".


:)

You misunderstand my point.

What I'm saying is if you're a minority you're pretty much excused from saying anything bad about any race or ethnicity,IE..Sharpton,Jackson.

If you're a white male though you best tread lightly lest you be accused of being racist or sexist.
Now, some of you guys from other countries may not understand this statement, but if you live in America you know exactly what I'm talkig about.

Having said that there is a double standard political wise too now,

If you are against illegal immigration=racist
Against affirmative action=racist
Against lyrics in gangster rap music=racist
Etc,etc,etc


but thats another thread

[Dancing David]

Not one of your strongest responses, Doctor.

By the way, Rush was making fun of Al Sharpton, and of the left's race-obsessed proclivity, not of blacks. In fact, it is many in the Obama fanbase who are prejudice, that is to say, prejudging him based on his race, as his political record is thin. When one says Obama is "refreshing" and "a breath of fresh air," that is code for "Obama is a non-threatening black male."


I like him because he is a civil right person, I also don't think he is going to be a President Moonbeam. I hope he will be a fiscal conservative. I don't know.

[Dancing David]

You misunderstand my point.

What I'm saying is if you're a minority you're pretty much excused from saying anything bad about any race or ethnicity,IE..Sharpton,Jackson.

If you're a white male though you best tread lightly lest you be accused of being racist or sexist.
Now, some of you guys from other countries may not understand this statement, but if you live in America you know exactly what I'm talkig about.

Having said that there is a double standard political wise too now,

If you are against illegal immigration=racist
Against affirmative action=racist
Against lyrics in gangster rap music=racist
Etc,etc,etc


but thats another thread


As I said it cuts both ways.

The original intent of political correctness is that there is harm in calling people "gay","n*gger" and other perjorative terms like Paki. Just because the kids at a school yard use gay to mean stupid does not make it a good thing. that is whatthe original intent of political correctness. It is discriminatory when people refer to the developmentaly disabeled as 'artards' or refer to anything as artarded. The intent may be humorous but the effect is discriminatory.

And Sharpton and others do not find it acceptable (I have never liked Sharpton BTW) for people to use the n-word or the bitches and hos thing.

Now many people play the race card both ways, and when people defend gangster lyrics that is racism.

Every week I debate my students about thier use of the word "nigg"+"ah" and all sorts of reverse racism.

Political correctness is based upon the notion that it is not okay to discriminate against people. especialy women, gays and lesbians and minorities.

And as I said it cuts both ways:

I think Bush's Iraq war was a mistake and poorly executed and huge mistake. That does not mean i support the terrorists. And in fact I think we have to clean up the mess we made.

I am not a weak minded liberal just because i support social entitlement programs. the majority of people on medicaid are the disabled and the elderly. But do the federal and state governments support the program, heck no. And i am called many things for supporting it.

And on and on.

[Drysdale]

As I said it cuts both ways.

The original intent of political correctness is that there is harm in calling people "gay","n*gger" and other perjorative terms like Paki. Just because the kids at a school yard use gay to mean stupid does not make it a good thing. that is whatthe original intent of political correctness. It is discriminatory when people refer to the developmentaly disabeled as 'artards' or refer to anything as artarded. The intent may be humorous but the effect is discriminatory.

And Sharpton and others do not find it acceptable (I have never liked Sharpton BTW) for people to use the n-word or the bitches and hos thing.

Now many people play the race card both ways, and when people defend gangster lyrics that is racism.

Every week I debate my students about thier use of the word "nigg"+"ah" and all sorts of reverse racism.

Political correctness is based upon the notion that it is not okay to discriminate against people. especialy women, gays and lesbians and minorities.

And as I said it cuts both ways:

I think Bush's Iraq war was a mistake and poorly executed and huge mistake. That does not mean i support the terrorists. And in fact I think we have to clean up the mess we made.

I am not a weak minded liberal just because i support social entitlement programs. the majority of people on medicaid are the disabled and the elderly. But do the federal and state governments support the program, heck no. And i am called many things for supporting it.

And on and on.


To me, being for or against the war or social programs etc is a political ideology, not correctness.

Political correctness started out with the notion that it is not okay to discriminate against people maybe. But it has evolved into something much more than that. The reason I brought up those particular examples is because if you live in a state where illegals are starting to just explode in population numbers and you have the audacity to say we have to do something about this you're called a racist. Politicians calling other politicians racists because they want to secure the borders etc.

Same with affirmative action and gangster rap.
Now that last one I'm touchy on as I dont believe in censorship at all, but it's gotten out of control in that forum so I'm not sure what the answer is there.

Maybe where you live it's the disabled and elderly that get the majority of benefits,which I have no problem with by the way. But where I do it's illegals that are taking tons of money out of social programs.
And if you question that you're a racist, and the list goes on.

Back to Sharpton, do a google search sometime on the things he's said and promoted. He's quite possibly the biggest and worst bigot in the public eye.

[steverino]

Explain.

Unless his broadcasts have subliminal messages saying "Limbaugh is not a jerk ... Limbaugh is not a jerk ..." then I am missing nothing by reading his statements instead of listening to them.

He's a jerk.

OK. But maybe the statements you read are out of context. I actually find him more interesting when he is not talking about politics, but is talking motivationally about persuing one's career and passion. He was basically a loser who made it big. He acknowledges it and this talk sometimes gives me hope of bettering myself. What sucks most about him is that little old ladies rely completely on his information and do not question it or seek out other news sources.

Could you please get together and decide what position it is he has taken that you're defending?

I am more about getting to the bottom of Obama's appeal. It is anecdotal, but I listen to what his admirers are saying, and it's all about race, and, as hgc says, his slim voting record with its lack of goof-ups.

[Dr Adequate]

He was basically a loser who made it big. He acknowledges it and this talk sometimes gives me hope of bettering myself. If you wish to emulate Limbaugh's success, you will need a pen, some blood, and a pentacle.

What shall it profit a man if he shall gain a radio show but lose his soul?

I am more about getting to the bottom of Obama's appeal. It is anecdotal, but I listen to what his admirers are saying, and it's all about race, and, as hgc says, his slim voting record with its lack of goof-ups. I listen to what his admirers are saying, and it isn't.

Strange, perhaps it's just me.

[slingblade]

You misunderstand my point.

What I'm saying is if you're a minority you're pretty much excused from saying anything bad about any race or ethnicity, IE..Sharpton, Jackson.

If you're a white male though you best tread lightly lest you be accused of being racist or sexist.

One reason why racism is bad is that it doesn't just affect a limited number of anonymous people in the here-and-now.

Some people apparently think it should. Usually white males. Young, angry, angsty ones at that.

They don't like that there seem to be differing standards for people based simply on skin color. Yeah. How does that feel? :i:

One thing they fail to recognize is that young white males are the most privileged group in American society, and always have been, since its founding.

Another is that they are largely whinging that they can't call people names and get away with it, but other people apparently can. Oh. Boo. Hoo.


If you are against illegal immigration=racist

If you are against illegal immigration across the board, no matter where they come from, even Canada, Europe, or Asia, then you are probably not racist, at least in that regard.

But if it's just "them danged Mexacuns," that have your panties in a wad, then yeah. You probably are.

Against affirmative action=racist

Surprisingly, it is possible to see the flaws in the AA program and not be making a racist assessment. It isn't hard to see that a program meant to address and balance equality in higher education and the workplace--and thus a program that doesn't really begin until one is 18 or older--actually fails in many ways to address equality and opportunity because it does ignore those first 18 or so years.

i.e. While it does tend to increase diversity, it doesn't really address equality.

Against lyrics in gangster rap music=racist

People of every hue are concerned about this issue. The use of these highly charged words (n*****, ho, etc.), their effects on society, and what they reflect in society must be both weighed and balanced with our right to free speech, and our assumed right to free artistic expression. That's a hard set to juggle. I don't presume to know how that's best accomplished.

Here's what I wonder, though: why would anyone want to use those words? And why would they so often base that want on the "fact" that other people get to use them and seem to "get away with it?" I mean, that's what I most often hear. It's not: "Hey, those are awful things to say about people, and always have been. I wish we could end the hatred that lies behind those words. Maybe then we'd stop using them."

No, it's more like: "RappyMcRapper gets to say those words all the time! Why can't I? I want to be able to say 'n*****' and not get the crap kicked out of me! Waaah!"

Is anyone else hearing his or her mom saying "And I suppose if all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge..." right about now?


Obama is both in a difficult place, and represents some difficult concepts. I don't envy the man. If he acknowledges race in any way, pro or con, he's going to get slammed, publicly, by many. And yet he cannot help the "race factor" inherent in his campaign. This effect concerns us all deeply. Those who support him, and those who don't--are they doing so from race, or from qualifications, personality, other, all of the above? (ETA: and how can we really know?)

Above all, that we can apply the term "magic negro" to anyone, for any reason, that we have coined such a term and understand immediately what it implies, reveals the race-based problems still extant in America better than just about anything else can....

[Darth Rotor]

Apparently.

In which they may demonstrate themselves to be completely nuts, but at least their stated criterion for being black is descent from slaves, not being dirty and inarticulate. That link was forged in the grubby and sulfurous furnace of Mr Limbaugh's mind.

Nope, in Joe Biden's patronizing, liberal mind.

Try to keep up with the story. Limbaugh pokes fun at that patronizing attitude: Biden's "He is clean and articulate, even though a negro."

Rush is still a windbag, but on this one, he is skewering folks who could use a pasting, and Obama is laughing along.

Note how Obama isn't offended (based on his remarks, which may of course be cleansed and slightly suspect for political reasons. )

The aim of the parody is to take the piss out of Al Sharpton, not Obama. Listen to the song (sung by Paul Shanklin) and you will understand that.

Again, for the slow of wit, the target of the parody was The Reverend Al Sharpton, a New York race baiting attention whore.

Rush is still a windbag, or jerk, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.

DR

[Drysdale]

One reason why racism is bad is that it doesn't just affect a limited number of anonymous people in the here-and-now.

Some people apparently think it should. Usually white males. Young, angry, angsty ones at that.

They don't like that there seem to be differing standards for people based simply on skin color. Yeah. How does that feel? :i:

One thing they fail to recognize is that young white males are the most privileged group in American society, and always have been, since its founding.

Another is that they are largely whinging that they can't call people names and get away with it, but other people apparently can. Oh. Boo. Hoo.




If you are against illegal immigration across the board, no matter where they come from, even Canada, Europe, or Asia, then you are probably not racist, at least in that regard.

But if it's just "them danged Mexacuns," that have your panties in a wad, then yeah. You probably are.



Surprisingly, it is possible to see the flaws in the AA program and not be making a racist assessment. It isn't hard to see that a program meant to address and balance equality in higher education and the workplace--and thus a program that doesn't really begin until one is 18 or older--actually fails in many ways to address equality and opportunity because it does ignore those first 18 or so years.

i.e. While it does tend to increase diversity, it doesn't really address equality.



People of every hue are concerned about this issue. The use of these highly charged words (n*****, ho, etc.), their effects on society, and what they reflect in society must be both weighed and balanced with our right to free speech, and our assumed right to free artistic expression. That's a hard set to juggle. I don't presume to know how that's best accomplished.

Here's what I wonder, though: why would anyone want to use those words? And why would they so often base that want on the "fact" that other people get to use them and seem to "get away with it?" I mean, that's what I most often hear. It's not: "Hey, those are awful things to say about people, and always have been. I wish we could end the hatred that lies behind those words. Maybe then we'd stop using them."

No, it's more like: "RappyMcRapper gets to say those words all the time! Why can't I? I want to be able to say 'n*****' and not get the crap kicked out of me! Waaah!"

Is anyone else hearing his or her mom saying "And I suppose if all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge..." right about now?


Obama is both in a difficult place, and represents some difficult concepts. I don't envy the man. If he acknowledges race in any way, pro or con, he's going to get slammed, publicly, by many. And yet he cannot help the "race factor" inherent in his campaign. This effect concerns us all deeply. Those who support him, and those who don't--are they doing so from race, or from qualifications, personality, other, all of the above? (ETA: and how can we really know?)

Above all, that we can apply the term "magic negro" to anyone, for any reason, that we have coined such a term and understand immediately what it implies, reveals the race-based problems still extant in America better than just about anything else can....

I wonder are you American? If so are you female?
Tone sure sounds like it.

Any racism is bad, and that includes racism against young white males who apparently you have an issue with and seem to think deserve it.

[rtalman]

I wonder are you American? If so are you female?
Tone sure sounds like it.

Any racism is bad, and that includes racism against young white males who apparently you have an issue with and seem to think deserve it.
Not to answer for Slingblade, but as an American white male, I can say that being called "Honky", "Cracker", "White Trash", etc. has zero net effect on me, because there is no institutional history of racism against or oppression of American white males in general, only subsets of that group.

Yes, racism=bad form in all cases. But due to the histories of various races, racism against a minority=abhorent and unacceptable.

[Mephisto]

I wonder are you American? If so are you female?
Tone sure sounds like it.

Any racism is bad, and that includes racism against young white males who apparently you have an issue with and seem to think deserve it.

They've got you pegged now, slingblade! Sounds like Mr. Drysdale is a'lookin fer trouble - better have Ellie Mae get them critters out of the cement pond! ;)

I'll agree that racism of any type of wrong, but young, white males only seem to notice when it's leveled at them. How's it feel when the shoe's on the other hand? :)

[Drysdale]

They've got you pegged now, slingblade! Sounds like Mr. Drysdale is a'lookin fer trouble - better have Ellie Mae get them critters out of the cement pond! ;)

I'll agree that racism of any type of wrong, but young, white males only seem to notice when it's leveled at them. How's it feel when the shoe's on the other hand? :)

Umm, I dont recall saying I'm a young white male.
And umm, I'm not.

[Mephisto]

Umm, I dont recall saying I'm a young white male.
And umm, I'm not.

I don't recall making accusations. Just posting a rhetorical question to young, white males . . . they ARE the first to notice when they're being "picked on."

[steverino]

What shall it profit a man if he shall gain a radio show but lose his soul?


Um, a private jet and a huge friggin' carbon footprint.

And me? My pockets are currently empty. So I guess my soul is still in tact.:o

[Mephisto]

And me? My pockets are currently empty. So I guess my soul is still in tact.:o

And a tactful soul thou art! If you were any poorer, Jesus would feel sorry for you. ;)

How ya doing?

[slingblade]

I wonder are you American? If so are you female?
Tone sure sounds like it.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).



Any racism is bad, and that includes racism against young white males who apparently you have an issue with and seem to think deserve it.

See above.

[Darth Rotor]

See above.
Would you rather he call you a cantankerous (man hating) bitch, as a famous magician once did?

Your post stank to high heaven of the virulent strain of man hating feminism, via overgeneralization, of the privilege of white males in contemporary society.

You are fine, your post wasn't one of your finest, and he called you on it.

All is well, remain calm.

DR

[Drysdale]

I don't recall making accusations. Just posting a rhetorical question to young, white males . . . they ARE the first to notice when they're being "picked on."

My mistake. I thought you were directing it to me.

However just another rhetorical question, are they really the first to notice?

I think in this era everyone(in America at least) seems to be looking for perceived sleights and insults. And why not, look at how many news stories are written and reported about alleged racial/sexual attacks,biases,slurs etc.

Then you have the usual suspects Sharpton,Jackson and others whose livelihood depends on racial unrest.

Then the ones who scream about that,Limbaughs,O'Reilly etc.

It never rests. So I think America as a whole has rabbit ears about everything right now racially and sexually. Like a bunch of kids telling on each other.

And as the old saying goes, unless you've walked a mile in someone else's shoes dont assume it's easier for them.

[slingblade]

Would you rather he call you a cantankerous (man hating) bitch, as a famous magician once did?

If my only choices are to be called names, I'd rather put him on ignore.
Are those my only choices?

I wonder why you bring up the incident with Penn? What bearing has it on my argument?

EDIT: I hope you don't think "cantankerous" means "man hating," as your post is somewhat ambiguous.

Your post stank to high heaven of the virulent strain of man hating feminism, via overgeneralization, of the privilege of white males in contemporary society.

As an argument, yours isn't very compelling or rational. It seems largely based on your opinion of me. See Ad Hominem.

You are fine, your post wasn't one of your finest, and he called you on it.

Positive assessment + negative assessment = opinion.
I suppose anything of substance to refute my arguments is out of the question?

All is well, remain calm.

Patronizing much?

[mijopaalmc]

Umm, I dont recall saying I'm a young white male.
And umm, I'm not.

I think this applies everyone equally, regardless of race or any other group status. However hard we try to fight it a little egocentrism remains in all of us and it gets emphasized when bad things happen to us. Appealing to a general characteristic that has been declared off limits as a means of character evaluation is often easier than considering that an event was a consequence of attributes specific to one's character but none the less fallacious.

For instance, I wasn't dismissed from my job because I have a poor work ethic; I was dismissed because I'm gay. I don't have a poor work ethic because I fail to manage my ADD correctly I have a poor work ethic because my ADD is unmanageable. (Yes, I know have these reasons, whether real or hypothetical *** backwards, but they are meant to be illustrative of the kind of psychological protection that goes on when something bad happens to someone.)

[Drysdale]

Slingblade, that's a nice definition of Ad Hominem.

Whats the relevance though?

I did'nt attack you nor call you a name. I asked a couple simple questions.
If you choose not to answer fine. If you choose to ignore me fine.

I'm indifferent either way. I've lived my life thus far without your comments.
I imagine I can make it a little longer.

[WildCat]

Could you please get together and decide what position it is he has taken that you're defending?
Perhaps you wouldn't look so lost and clueless if you paid attention to the actual facts of the matter. Let's recap:

- Rush's parody song wasn't really about Obama

- It was sung from the perspective of Al Sharpton, taking offense (which I detailed earlier) at Joe Biden's statement that Obama was the first articulate, clean black man who ever ran for President. You may recall that Sharpton ran for President in 2004.

- He took the term "magic negro" from Ehrensteins column, to drive the point home that Obama's blackness or lack thereof was a curious point of contention among Democrats - the party who has laid claim to being the party of equal rights and racial equality.

-Rush wasn't the one questioning Obama's blackness (that was Ehrenstein et al) or expressing amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright (that was Joe Biden) or who has made a career out of race-baiting (that would be Al Sharpton).

The outrage expressed over Limbaugh (as clearly demonstrated by the very title of this thread) is from those who are completely ignorant of any of this, and can't get past the fact that the song contains the term "magic negro". I expect such knee-jerk reactions from political partisans looking for a way to score a cheap point on the ignorant masses, but I am truly surprised at the amount of smart, informed, and politically astute members of this forum who have fallen for the bumper-sticker simplification without the slightest critical review.

My $0.02.

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps you wouldn't look so lost and clueless if you paid attention to the actual facts of the matter. Let's recap:

- Rush's parody song wasn't really about Obama Er ... do you want to have a bit of a lie down?

- It was sung from the perspective of Al Sharpton, taking offense (which I detailed earlier) at Joe Biden's statement that Obama was the first articulate, clean black man who ever ran for President. You may recall that Sharpton ran for President in 2004. Yeah, Limbaugh's really multitasking, isn't he?

-Rush wasn't the one questioning Obama's blackness (that was Ehrenstein ... Nope.

... or expressing amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright (that was Joe Biden) Nope.

... or who has made a career out of race-baiting (that would be Al Sharpton). It couldn't be both?

The outrage expressed over Limbaugh (as clearly demonstrated by the very title of this thread) is from those who are completely ignorant of any of this, and can't get past the fact that the song contains the term "magic negro". I expect such knee-jerk reactions from political partisans looking for a way to score a cheap point on the ignorant masses, but I am truly surprised at the amount of smart, informed, and politically astute members of this forum who have fallen for the bumper-sticker simplification without the slightest critical review. Wow, yes, it is strange that smart, informed and politically astute people don't agree with you.

Perhaps if you thought about that for a bit, you'd realise why.

[steverino]

And a tactful soul thou art! If you were any poorer, Jesus would feel sorry for you. ;)

How ya doing?

How come these threads always end up talking about Jesus or Hitler?:p

[WildCat]

Wow, yes, it is strange that smart, informed and politically astute people don't agree with you.

Perhaps if you thought about that for a bit, you'd realise why.
I have thought about it. Apparently critical thinking takes a back seat to politics for some folks here. Because nothing you claim is supported by a single fact.

[Klaymore]

They don't like that there seem to be differing standards for people based simply on skin color. Yeah. How does that feel? :i:

Wow... what a terrible, thoughtless, stupid thing to say... I hope that Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner's families never read that.

One thing they fail to recognize is that young white males are the most privileged group in American society, and always have been, since its founding.


And that's what bigotry is: Lumping an entire group of people in for censure, opprobrium, and hatred based on the characteristics or attributes (real or imagined) of other members of the group. To institutionalize and validate that behavior is wrong, wrong, wrong.


Another is that they are largely whinging that they can't call people names and get away with it, but other people apparently can. Oh. Boo. Hoo.


Again... wow...


If you are against illegal immigration across the board, no matter where they come from, even Canada, Europe, or Asia, then you are probably not racist, at least in that regard.

But if it's just "them danged Mexacuns," that have your panties in a wad, then yeah. You probably are.

On this we agree.

Surprisingly, it is possible to see the flaws in the AA program and not be making a racist assessment. It isn't hard to see that a program meant to address and balance equality in higher education and the workplace--and thus a program that doesn't really begin until one is 18 or older--actually fails in many ways to address equality and opportunity because it does ignore those first 18 or so years.

i.e. While it does tend to increase diversity, it doesn't really address equality.


Great topic for another thread.

People of every hue are concerned about this issue. The use of these highly charged words (n*****, ho, etc.), their effects on society, and what they reflect in society must be both weighed and balanced with our right to free speech, and our assumed right to free artistic expression. That's a hard set to juggle. I don't presume to know how that's best accomplished.

Here's what I wonder, though: why would anyone want to use those words? And why would they so often base that want on the "fact" that other people get to use them and seem to "get away with it?" I mean, that's what I most often hear. It's not: "Hey, those are awful things to say about people, and always have been. I wish we could end the hatred that lies behind those words. Maybe then we'd stop using them."


I can't believe that the same person who wrote these wise words put that deplorable crap at the top of her post.


Obama is both in a difficult place, and represents some difficult concepts. I don't envy the man. If he acknowledges race in any way, pro or con, he's going to get slammed, publicly, by many. And yet he cannot help the "race factor" inherent in his campaign. This effect concerns us all deeply. Those who support him, and those who don't--are they doing so from race, or from qualifications, personality, other, all of the above? (ETA: and how can we really know?)

Above all, that we can apply the term "magic negro" to anyone, for any reason, that we have coined such a term and understand immediately what it implies, reveals the race-based problems still extant in America better than just about anything else can....


Well said. I'm still curious as to whether you denounce or endorse use of the epithet, however.

[slingblade]

Slingblade, that's a nice definition of Ad Hominem.

Whats the relevance though?

I did'nt attack you nor call you a name. I asked a couple simple questions.
If you choose not to answer fine. If you choose to ignore me fine.

I'm indifferent either way. I've lived my life thus far without your comments.
I imagine I can make it a little longer.

What do the questions you asked about me have to do with the points in my argument?

Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. If your position is that my argument is false, present your reasons.

[Drysdale]

What do the questions you asked about me have to do with the points in my argument?

Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. If your position is that my argument is false, present your reasons.


Well, I asked to try and get a better understanding of what I'm dealing with.
You sound like a frustrated woman, just curious if you are or I'm missing a point in there somewhere. This is not meant to be an insult, just curious.

There's a lot of venom in your words in those first few paragraphs. I'm not going to get into a oh yea,well take this on for size discussion.

Most of your points I agree with, affirmative action was a new idea but I dont think it worked. Time to junk it.

All illegals I'm referring to. Especially in light of the situation we find ourselves in with terrorists. We dont need any ethnicity just freely jaunting across the borders.

Rap music. Again, I dont like censorship but it's degenerated into something harmful.

Obama, thats political ideology. Indifferent on him right now. Ask me much later.

Back to those first few paragraphs.
Sounded like you are attacking young white males. No idea why. If you want to delve into specifics on why young white males have deserved that treatment it's up to you. You're throwing a big blanket over a lot of people right now.

I'm willing to listen but I'm not going to address it the way you presented it there.

[slingblade]

Wow... what a terrible, thoughtless, stupid thing to say... I hope that Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner's families never read that.

I think you must have misunderstood somehow.

My point is that there are folks who only seem to notice epithets are bad when they find they are shunned for using them, or when people use epithets against them that they equally don't deserve. Then they notice the harm, ironically.


I can't believe that the same person who wrote these wise words put that deplorable crap at the top of her post.

As I said earlier, I get foot-in-mouth disease from time to time as I struggle to understand all this.

I can see where you'd think I'm bigoted against white men because I say the group has always had privilege in the U.S.

So I'd just like to know: what right extended to another aspect or aspects of American society did white men have to fight for in order to receive as well?

Well said. I'm still curious as to whether you denounce or endorse use of the epithet, however.

So as to avoid the trap of the false dichotomy, my response is "in what context?" I mostly view the existence of the term, and the various concepts which lie behind it (depending on the speaker), as proof that racism is still very much alive and well in America.

I think it's not necessarily racist in and of itself, but depends on how it's used and by whom, for what purpose.

[Klaymore]

Graciously said.

[W]hat right extended to another aspect or aspects of American society did white men have to fight for in order to receive as well?

Those laid out in the Bill of Rights, among others. But your question also implies a false dichotomy that one must either fight for one's rights or not deserve them. The founding philosophy of America is that we do not have to fight for rights. We are just born with our rights, and they can not be taken from us. If someone tries to take away my (or your) rights, then I (or you, or preferably both of us) have the axiomatic right to defend our other rights from being taken away by any means necessary.

[slingblade]

Graciously said.

Thank you.

Those laid out in the Bill of Rights, among others.

But it wasn't America then. I mean after the war, after this land became America, which rights were being given to some Americans, but not to white males? I am assuming there must have been one, maybe two, which would at least help negate my premise of white males as historically being the most privileged members of American society by virtue of simply being both white and male, and for no other reason.

But your question also implies a false dichotomy that one must either fight for one's rights or not deserve them.

I don't mean to do that. I mean only to show that as far as inherent, unasked for, unearned privilege, white men have it all over everyone else, and have for a very long time. As far as the history of America goes, they always have had. And today, they still do. Next would be white women, whiteness being the salient factor.

The founding philosophy of America is that we do not have to fight for rights. We are just born with our rights, and they can not be taken from us. If someone tries to take away my (or your) rights, then I (or you, or preferably both of us) have the axiomatic right to defend our other rights from being taken away by any means necessary.

But this wasn't always true. African slaves born in America were not born with rights. That philosophy only applied to whites, and in many cases (like the right to vote) only to white men. Amerinds at one time were not born in America with rights. Women of any ethnicity were not born with rights.

I'm not saying you are only worthy of having rights if you fight for them. I am saying if you have never had to fight for any rights on a race, gender, or class scale, that's a sign of inherent, assumed privilege.

From studies and observation, including having lived in various parts of the U.S., I see that white privilege exists. It is a thing one cannot ask for or demand, but which one cannot refuse, either. And white men have long had a monopoly on it. It has only begun to break down in the last 160 years, on several fronts, and continues today.

[mijopaalmc]

Never mind. The above covered it better than I did.

[Klaymore]

But this wasn't always true. African slaves born in America were not born with rights.


Yes they were; they were just denied them.

I'm not saying you are only worthy of having rights if you fight for them. I am saying if you have never had to fight for any rights on a race, gender, or class scale, that's a sign of inherent, assumed privilege.


No it's not. It's just a sign that the individual in question has never had to fight for any rights based upon "race, gender, or class scale." Again, that assumes that you accept the definition of "rights" as being inalienable and endowed at birth.


From studies and observation, including having lived in various parts of the U.S., I see that white privilege exists.


Since I don't have your definition of white privilege, I don't want to bash a straw man argument. However, I suspect that what you are saying is that you have seen individual instances of whites getting better treatment than blacks. You probably have. You have also almost certainly witnessed numerous instances in which people who were not white were afforded preferential treatment due to their race. However, those individual instances indicate only cases of preferential treatment for the individuals involved, not their race as a whole.

But suddenly, we are far, far afield of what I consider to be the central question of this thread (although, as Dr. A has pointed out numerous times, there is as of yet no consensus on that). So to restate my earlier assertions:

1) I believe that the term "Magic Negro" as applied by David Ehrenstein in his op-ed piece is inherently offensive, both for the way in which it attempts to characterize blacks, and the way in which it attempts to characterize whites;

2) I (and I claim only to speak for myself, not for all of Rush's supporters) believe that Rush's intention in using the term was to point out:

A) that it perpetuated negative stereotypes about both blacks and whites which he found objectionable, and;

B) that the same people who would accept the term coming from a liberal would not accept that same term as applied in the same manner by a conservative.

3) I believe that to use an epithet for purposes of parodying the individuals who subscribe to the implications of that epithet is an appropriate manner in which to mock said individuals;

4) I beleive that Rush's use of the term in this specific instance was an effective and acceptable means of mocking those who subscribe to the epithet as applied by Mr. Ehrenstein to Senator Obama.

[Piggy]

Y'know, I just can't get worked up about this.

LA Times does its high-tone thing with its academic treatment of some arcane theme.

Rush does his same old clownish act by lampooning Sharpton and Obama and the Times on one skewer.

Free speech can be ugly.

But in the end, all this means absolutely zip.

No one's mind is changed. The Dittoheads get their cheap laugh. The media mavens get their chance to admire their own misunderstood intellectual superiority.

And then some folks choose to wring their hands over it when they could be cooking supper.

Yawn.

[mijopaalmc]

Y'know, I just can't get worked up about this.

LA Times does its high-tone thing with its academic treatment of some arcane theme.

Rush does his same old clownish act by lampooning Sharpton and Obama and the Times on one skewer.

Free speech can be ugly.

But in the end, all this means absolutely zip.

No one's mind is changed. The Dittoheads get their cheap laugh. The media mavens get their chance to admire their own misunderstood intellectual superiority.

And then some folks choose to wring their hands over it when they could be cooking supper.

Yawn.

Would you say the same thing about someone who implied that Jews were greedy? Or that Muslims were inherently violent?

Generally cases of outright bigotry are few and far between in the mass media. That is why people have a lot more wiggle room when they say things such as Limbaugh said. The bigotry is only implied therefore it is easy for the speaker to accuse the audience of being too sensitive.

[Piggy]

Would you say the same thing about someone who implied that Jews were greedy? Or that Muslims were inherently violent?
Yup. Why, is there a difference?

It's like the Michael Richards thing... it's important if you want it to be.

The world is full of fools. Is that news?

Not to me.

[slingblade]

Yes they were; they were just denied them.

Yes, they were, which is the same as not having them at all.

The fact that the framers of these American documents could say "every person is born with certain rights" while simultaneously denying these very rights to various groups of people should show what a ludicrous conceit this notion is. What sense does it make to say that "all men have certain natural rights, except for you lot over there, and over there?" It's either all or it's not. And if it's not all, then it isn't true.

No it's not. It's just a sign that the individual in question has never had to fight for any rights based upon "race, gender, or class scale." Again, that assumes that you accept the definition of "rights" as being inalienable and endowed at birth.

It's possible I don't accept that definition as a matter of course. I don't have a belief in or agreement with the concept of "natural rights." I feel the concept of human rights is a purely human concept and conceit that relies on other humans to function. I don't believe it inherently exists.

Another flaw is in positing that individual and group concerns are always distinct. They are not. I feel that the social history of whiteness in this country lends an intangible but very real cultural capital to being white that cannot be earned or refused by the individual. He or she simply benefits from it, often oblivious to it.

Since I don't have your definition of white privilege, I don't want to bash a straw man argument. However, I suspect that what you are saying is that you have seen individual instances of whites getting better treatment than blacks. You probably have. You have also almost certainly witnessed numerous instances in which people who were not white were afforded preferential treatment due to their race. However, those individual instances indicate only cases of preferential treatment for the individuals involved, not their race as a whole.

Yes. The problem comes with observing this cultural effect on an individual level and thinking that imparts meaning. On an individual level is rarely where it operates.

For instance, let me share an anecdote. Take it for what you will. I'll tell you how I took it.

I was given an article in a college course on race and education. I can't now recall the title of the article, but it contained a quote from a California teacher that left me a bit stunned. Speaking of her black students, the teacher said, "How can we expect them to value education when they come a from a culture that does not?"

And I could not, for the life of me, figure where she could come up with such a notion. For one thing, these students live in the American culture, which has always valued education. Did this teacher somehow think that black students are separate and insulated from American culture?

For another, blacks in this country fought for and died for the right to read and write. They knew these were the keys to freedom. Whites knew it too; they made it illegal. How can having a history like this ever be seen as coming from a culture that doesn't value education?

But suddenly, we are far, far afield of what I consider to be the central question of this thread (although, as Dr. A has pointed out numerous times, there is as of yet no consensus on that).

That happens whenever people discuss a complicated and multi-layered subject. There are no quick discussions in this area; no swift or simple answers. If you want to discuss a racist event, you must be prepared to discuss racism in general.

So to restate my earlier assertions:

1) I believe that the term "Magic Negro" as applied by David Ehrenstein in his op-ed piece is inherently offensive, both for the way in which it attempts to characterize blacks, and the way in which it attempts to characterize whites;

It is also indicative of the problems we still have in our society regarding race.

2) I (and I claim only to speak for myself, not for all of Rush's supporters) believe that Rush's intention in using the term was to point out:

A) that it perpetuated negative stereotypes about both blacks and whites which he found objectionable,

I don't think he cares, either way. But if I had to voice an opinion, I think the term probably makes him giggle, if only at how much trouble he can stir up in so many places by using it.


and;
B) that the same people who would accept the term coming from a liberal would not accept that same term as applied in the same manner by a conservative.

I'm not sure really what you mean. If it is a pejorative no matter who uses it, then I won't "accept it" coming from either side of that dichotomy. I will not object to the general use of the term in order that its implications and ramifications can be discussed, but....

Look, I know others have discussed it, but here's my take. When I heard the term "magic negro," outside of any particular context, I immediately defined it for myself as: "The magic negro is the one who, by attaining prominence in some high field, never before attained by a non-white, will make racism magically go away simply by his attainment." I've no idea if that's what meant by the term or not. It's just what I thought might be meant, and if so, it's obviously fallacious, a pipe-dream, and racist.

Largely because it once again puts the burden of ending racism on those who endure racism.

3) I believe that to use an epithet for purposes of parodying the individuals who subscribe to the implications of that epithet is an appropriate manner in which to mock said individuals;

4) I beleive that Rush's use of the term in this specific instance was an effective and acceptable means of mocking those who subscribe to the epithet as applied by Mr. Ehrenstein to Senator Obama.

I won't disagree. Those are opinions, and you are entitled to hold them.

In general, however, I find it hard to believe mockery, even mockery in response to mockery, is ever all that effective at instigating change. I'd rather seeing us exchanging solutions instead of japes.

[Dr Adequate]

I have thought about it. Apparently critical thinking takes a back seat to politics for some folks here. Because nothing you claim is supported by a single fact. Well, it sure is swell of you to make stuff up about me.

You didn't even try to dispute my facts, or to present evidence against any of my facts, you just told me that I haven't presented any facts, a falsehood evident to anyone who has read this thread.

Tell me, do you have any Creationist blood in you?

[Dr Adequate]

But suddenly, we are far, far afield of what I consider to be the central question of this thread (although, as Dr. A has pointed out numerous times, there is as of yet no consensus on that) ... I (and I claim only to speak for myself, not for all of Rush's supporters) believe that Rush's intention ... I beleive that Rush's use of the term in this specific instance was an effective and acceptable means ... And now you accept that Limbaugh's defenders can't agree on what he said.

But you still believe that whatever it was he meant, it was "effective and acceptable".

Sheesh. Why do so many right-wing Americans have to stick up for scumbag clowns like Limbugh and Coulter? I mean, I'm to your left, but I don't feel some crazy urge to stick up for Mao Tse Tung. What's the matter with you?

[Mephisto]

My mistake. I thought you were directing it to me.

Nope, just taking a potshot at a few young, white male friends here. ;)

However just another rhetorical question, are they really the first to notice?

Well, you could say that Sharpton and Jackson would be the first to notice, but I wouldn't count on them to speak up about it.

I think in this era everyone(in America at least) seems to be looking for perceived sleights and insults. And why not, look at how many news stories are written and reported about alleged racial/sexual attacks,biases,slurs etc.

You may be right that everyone may be alert for perceived insults, but why would they waste their time when there are so many REAL insults flying about?

It never rests. So I think America as a whole has rabbit ears about everything right now racially and sexually. Like a bunch of kids telling on each other.

That's because our country is led by "decider" who also happens to be the "uniter." He's done a horrible job at everything else, why should we feel united? Racial tensions have returned to the same levels as the 60s IMHO.

And as the old saying goes, unless you've walked a mile in someone else's shoes dont assume it's easier for them.

I think the original adage referred to moccasins. :)

[Mephisto]

How come these threads always end up talking about Jesus or Hitler?:p

:) Because they're two of the most influential men ever?

Actually, I'm sure it's because their middles names are Godwin. ;)

[Klaymore]

Another flaw is in positing that individual and group concerns are always distinct. They are not. I feel that the social history of whiteness in this country lends an intangible but very real cultural capital to being white that cannot be earned or refused by the individual. He or she simply benefits from it, often oblivious to it.


I think I know a guy who would pay you a million dollars if you could prove under mutually agreed-upon protocols that there is such a thing as a "group concern" that is not felt by the individuals in the group.

[Drysdale]

Yes, they were, which is the same as not having them at all.

The fact that the framers of these American documents could say "every person is born with certain rights" while simultaneously denying these very rights to various groups of people should show what a ludicrous conceit this notion is. What sense does it make to say that "all men have certain natural rights, except for you lot over there, and over there?" It's either all or it's not. And if it's not all, then it isn't true.



It's possible I don't accept that definition as a matter of course. I don't have a belief in or agreement with the concept of "natural rights." I feel the concept of human rights is a purely human concept and conceit that relies on other humans to function. I don't believe it inherently exists.

Another flaw is in positing that individual and group concerns are always distinct. They are not. I feel that the social history of whiteness in this country lends an intangible but very real cultural capital to being white that cannot be earned or refused by the individual. He or she simply benefits from it, often oblivious to it.



Yes. The problem comes with observing this cultural effect on an individual level and thinking that imparts meaning. On an individual level is rarely where it operates.

For instance, let me share an anecdote. Take it for what you will. I'll tell you how I took it.

I was given an article in a college course on race and education. I can't now recall the title of the article, but it contained a quote from a California teacher that left me a bit stunned. Speaking of her black students, the teacher said, "How can we expect them to value education when they come a from a culture that does not?"

And I could not, for the life of me, figure where she could come up with such a notion. For one thing, these students live in the American culture, which has always valued education. Did this teacher somehow think that black students are separate and insulated from American culture?

For another, blacks in this country fought for and died for the right to read and write. They knew these were the keys to freedom. Whites knew it too; they made it illegal. How can having a history like this ever be seen as coming from a culture that doesn't value education?



That happens whenever people discuss a complicated and multi-layered subject. There are no quick discussions in this area; no swift or simple answers. If you want to discuss a racist event, you must be prepared to discuss racism in general.



It is also indicative of the problems we still have in our society regarding race.



I don't think he cares, either way. But if I had to voice an opinion, I think the term probably makes him giggle, if only at how much trouble he can stir up in so many places by using it.




I'm not sure really what you mean. If it is a pejorative no matter who uses it, then I won't "accept it" coming from either side of that dichotomy. I will not object to the general use of the term in order that its implications and ramifications can be discussed, but....

Look, I know others have discussed it, but here's my take. When I heard the term "magic negro," outside of any particular context, I immediately defined it for myself as: "The magic negro is the one who, by attaining prominence in some high field, never before attained by a non-white, will make racism magically go away simply by his attainment." I've no idea if that's what meant by the term or not. It's just what I thought might be meant, and if so, it's obviously fallacious, a pipe-dream, and racist.

Largely because it once again puts the burden of ending racism on those who endure racism.



I won't disagree. Those are opinions, and you are entitled to hold them.

In general, however, I find it hard to believe mockery, even mockery in response to mockery, is ever all that effective at instigating change. I'd rather seeing us exchanging solutions instead of japes.

I'm still not sure what you are saying. You're saying it's ok today for white men to be held to different standards because the majority of young males in this country just happened to be white and priveleged in our history?

There's a lot of white privileged lives lost to enable you to say what you just said.

Is that not going to just continue the cycle? I think it's time we moved on and treated everyone equally for their actions regardless of race.

Lets do this though.

Pick another country, whatever the racial/religious majority is in that country could you not say the exact same thing? If not racial lines then sectarian lines?

Slavery is deplorable. We are not the only country to have a history of it though unfortunately. We may be among the latest, but this is a relatively young country. Anything that happens here will seem magnified because of that.

In all cultures I think the case can be made the young men are privileged.
They worked, they made the laws,they fought the wars,they built the houses,cities etc. Is that not historically true in all cultures?
In this country the young men just happened to be in the majority white.

Many other races did indeed help build this country,not just white or black.
And yes there were many black lives lost fighting for their rights. But there were many whites lives lost fighting for their rights too. Does that not count?

In most cases those past digressions have been attempted to be rectified in this country. Thats more than what a lot of other nations have done.
We are an evolving nation, even species still. Many attempts have been made to move on and leave the past behind. We dont need to forget it no,but we need to look ahead, not behind and say well, since you YWM's were privileged in this country now you are going to get your comeuppance.

That does'nt solve problems.

[Drysdale]

Oh and about this...

I was given an article in a college course on race and education. I can't now recall the title of the article, but it contained a quote from a California teacher that left me a bit stunned. Speaking of her black students, the teacher said, "How can we expect them to value education when they come a from a culture that does not?"

I think we all have stories like this from varying perspectives.

The ignorance of one does not make for the ignorance of all.

[Darth Rotor]

If my only choices are to be called names, I'd rather put him on ignore.
Are those my only choices?
One hopes not.

I wonder why you bring up the incident with Penn? What bearing has it on my argument?
The post tended to confirm Penn's tart remark.
EDIT: I hope you don't think "cantankerous" means "man hating," as your post is somewhat ambiguous.
No, the man hating was an add on, due to your using tired old feminist, sound bytes.
One thing they fail to recognize is that young white males are the most privileged group in American society, and always have been, since its founding.

As an argument, yours isn't very compelling or rational. It seems largely based on your opinion of me.
It was an analysis, not an argument, and my opinion of you is positive. The post, not so much.

When your own argument relies on

1. Gross generalization
2. A forty year old sound byte

I can't see why you want to defend it. However, you are free to do so.

DR

[Dancing David]

To me, being for or against the war or social programs etc is a political ideology, not correctness.

Political correctness started out with the notion that it is not okay to discriminate against people maybe. But it has evolved into something much more than that. The reason I brought up those particular examples is because if you live in a state where illegals are starting to just explode in population numbers and you have the audacity to say we have to do something about this you're called a racist. Politicians calling other politicians racists because they want to secure the borders etc.

That I understand, but the illegals do usualy work and the employers are supposed to take the taxes, and pay them to the government, not just make it into profit. When I used to visit the local Public Aid office, we only saw the immigrants at harvest time. they were much politer than the natives.

But hospital care is a real problem in border towns.

Most of the farm workers localy are immigrants as are the factory workers, at least the minimum wage factory work, like injection plastics. We need a guest worker program without the crap.

Natives can apply for these jobs any time they want. They just don't.


Same with affirmative action and gangster rap.

I think affirmative action is important because of the hidden nature of preferences given to people with education,high social class and the infamous conections.

I do not think affirmative action should be every where forever. But when a population of workers does not6 reflect it's community than there is a problem. Educational support is the most imporatant. The Michigan law scholl case was bogus, there were plenty of white cadidates who placed above the plantiff without any reason.

But due to discussion on this board I now belief in affirmative action based upon socio-economic status.

There are the hidden preferences given to people that do not make for a level playing field.

Now that last one I'm touchy on as I dont believe in censorship at all, but it's gotten out of control in that forum so I'm not sure what the answer is there.

Maybe where you live it's the disabled and elderly that get the majority of benefits,which I have no problem with by the way. But where I do it's illegals that are taking tons of money out of social programs.

I believe that may be happening. But then they are part of our economy. I wonder who benefits from keeping it hidden and off the books?

And if you question that you're a racist, and the list goes on.

the race card is bogus in most discussions.

But it is not okay to discriminate based upon the suspect classes.



Back to Sharpton, do a google search sometime on the things he's said and promoted. He's quite possibly the biggest and worst bigot in the public eye.


I don't like Sharpton already. Some things he says are bigoted. I used to like Jackson, until he came to Decatur,IL. Some things he does are useful.

[Dancing David]

I wonder are you American? If so are you female?
Tone sure sounds like it.

Any racism is bad, and that includes racism against young white males who apparently you have an issue with and seem to think deserve it.

That is true, but we do not have a level playing field, not at all.

1. Why should the fact that your gradfather went to Yale matter in admissions?

2. The good ole boy network exists and is real. If you aren't a good ole boy than you can't use it's influence?

3. there is great disequity is the proportion of jobs available and school funding in different areas. Often it is not that the people are "lazy", they don't have a car and no access to a good job.

4. Discrimination still exists, it is not as prevalent and often seen when it doesn't exist but it is real. Redlining in mortages is a good example.



There are things that need to be done to level the playing field, AA is a poor solution at best. And it should be based upon socio-economic status.

When we get rid of corporate welfare, then I will be for getting rid of social welfare.(Except for those who really can't work.)

[Darth Rotor]

There are things that need to be done to level the playing field, AA is a poor solution at best. And it should be based upon socio-economic status.
The only thing "poor" about AA was its becoming an entitlement, rather than a well managed corrective tool. That's politics.
When we get rid of corporate welfare, then I will be for getting rid of social welfare.(Except for those who really can't work.)
I tend to share your sentiment, however, there is a certain amount of self interest in corporate welfare forms of various sorts: you give X a tax break in your district, plant is built, and more jobs gets to more tax revenue for your district, and so on. Circles within circles.

DR

[steverino]

So I'd just like to know: what right extended to another aspect or aspects of American society did white men have to fight for in order to receive as well?

Groups of white males have been terribly treated in America's history. The Irish would be one example. Have-nots from the British Isles were kidnapped, and sent to the Caribbean as indentured servants. Half died on ships coming over. When we think "hillbilly in Tennessee," we are actually saying "white ni**er," as some of these mountain people are decendants of white slaves. We make fun of them, but not southern rural blacks, because in our society we feel that "whites should know better."

http://www.amazon.com/REDNECK-MANIFESTO-HILLBILLIES-AMERICAS-
SCAPEGOATS/dp/0684838648

From another link:

Appropriately enough, kidnapper seems to have originated among those who perpetrate this crime. We know this because kid and napper, the two parts of the compound, were slang of the sort that criminals used. Kid, which still has an informal air, was considered low slang when kidnapper was formed, and napper is obsolete slang for a thief, coming from the verb nap, “to steal.” Nap is possibly a variant of nab, which also still has a slangy ring. In 1678, the year in which the word is first recorded, kidnappers plied their trade to secure laborers for plantations in colonies such as the ones in North America. The term later took on the broader sense that it has today. The verb kidnap is recorded later (1682) than the noun and so is possibly a back-formation, that is, people may have assumed that a kidnapper kidnaps.

[Drysdale]

That is true, but we do not have a level playing field, not at all.

1. Why should the fact that your gradfather went to Yale matter in admissions?

2. The good ole boy network exists and is real. If you aren't a good ole boy than you can't use it's influence?

3. there is great disequity is the proportion of jobs available and school funding in different areas. Often it is not that the people are "lazy", they don't have a car and no access to a good job.

4. Discrimination still exists, it is not as prevalent and often seen when it doesn't exist but it is real. Redlining in mortages is a good example.



There are things that need to be done to level the playing field, AA is a poor solution at best. And it should be based upon socio-economic status.

When we get rid of corporate welfare, then I will be for getting rid of social welfare.(Except for those who really can't work.)

Oh, I agree for the most part. But a lot of these are class discrimination, not racial discrimination. And it's not all just race. When you see more of other races employed in particular fields you need to step back and look at the specifics.

For example, I was in a management positon at my last job before I moved on.

Lets say we had 5 openings.
You would not believe how many young black men came in there for a job interview in tank tops,pants off their butts, hats on crooked etc.

Now on the surface if we hired
2 white guys ,2 hispanic and only 1 black it looks bad numbers wise.
What you dont see is the details of those that applied. And that does'nt take into consideration the ones that just are'nt qualified.

And then you'll have some blacks(I dont know why this is, but high %'s of all racial grievances are predominantly black) use race as a crutch.
We had one guy(this was a pharmaceutical company) that would fall asleep counting pills,or doing QA. It was bad. We tried to fire him(he had transferred
from another store so had tenure) and it was hell. Anyone in that store was being called a racist who was'nt black for trying to hold him accountable.
We finally pointed a security camera at him which usually is pointed somewhere else just for evidence.

And to me, this goes back to the rap music and movies etc. It's cool in some circles to be a dropout and not work. Bill Cosby caught hell for basically saying that but I think a lot of the black people feel exactly like that. They are giving them a bad reputation.

That music is a lot of the problem I think.

[slingblade]

Groups of white males have been terribly treated in America's history. The Irish would be one example. Have-nots from the British Isles were kidnapped, and sent to the Caribbean as indentured servants. Half died on ships coming over. When we think "hillbilly in Tennessee," we are actually saying "white ni**er," as some of these mountain people are decendants of white slaves. We make fun of them, but not southern rural blacks, because in our society we feel that "whites should know better."

Except when the Irish came here, they weren't exactly white yet.

From an interview with Noel Ignatiev, author of "How the Irish Became White."

Q: You point out that at one point the Irish were known as "white Negroes" and black people were referred to as "smoked Irish." What did those terms reflect?

A: They reflected the scorn and disdain with which both were regarded by the better situated, by the leading elements of American society. There was speculation that there would be some "amalgamation," that is, that Irish and black would blend into each other and become one common people. That didn't happen; in fact, the opposite happened.

Q: What exactly happened?

A: Essentially what happened was the Irish became white. That is, rather than joining with black people--free and slave--to overthrow the system of slavery and racial oppression which prevailed in the United States, they chose, by and large, to find a way to gain for themselves a favored position within it.

In 1841, the Irish political leader (in Ireland) Daniel O'Connell--he was something of a combination of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, the most popular figure among Irishmen throughout the world--issued an appeal--he and 70,000 others in Ireland--to the Irish in the United States, calling upon them to join with the abolitionists in America, to join the struggle to overthrow slavery. Treat the Negro everywhere as your equal, your brother, he said, and in doing so you will bring honor to the name of Ireland. O'Connell was speaking from a situation where Catholics in Ireland were members of an oppressed race. He was the leader of their movement to overturn that kind of subjugation. So he naturally reached out for alliances with the struggle against racial injustice everywhere.

The Irish in America rejected him. He went so far as to say if you don't do this, then we won't recognize you as Irish. They thought about it and concluded, okay, if you force us to choose between our love for Ireland and our attachment to the institutions of our new country, then it's South Carolina forever. What they decided to do was integrate themselves into American life as citizens, invoking the privileges of whiteness.

Having fair skin made the Irish eligible to be white, but it didn't guarantee their admission. They had to earn it.

[slingblade]

I'm still not sure what you are saying. You're saying it's ok today for white men to be held to different standards because the majority of young males in this country just happened to be white and priveleged in our history?

No, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.

There's a lot of white privileged lives lost to enable you to say what you just said.

I have no idea why you want to use such a blatant appeal to emotion, but it won't work. Not on me.

Is that not going to just continue the cycle? I think it's time we moved on and treated everyone equally for their actions regardless of race.

Good luck. It is doubtful racism will end in my lifetime or yours.

Lets do this though.

Pick another country, whatever the racial/religious majority is in that country could you not say the exact same thing? If not racial lines then sectarian lines?

I have no idea and don't think that's a tenable argument. Other countries don't have America's history to deal with. We do.


In all cultures I think the case can be made the young men are privileged.
They worked, they made the laws,they fought the wars,they built the houses,cities etc. Is that not historically true in all cultures?

I cannot help it if you are not familiar with the concept of white privilege and don't understand it. I would undertake to give you links where you might learn more, but that has never done me or my arguments any good here. No one will visit or read the links I provide. I find it a waste of my time.


In this country the young men just happened to be in the majority white.

"Just happen to?" Um. Okay. The founding of the U.S. is nothing but sheer coincidence and happenstance?

Many other races did indeed help build this country,not just white or black.
And yes there were many black lives lost fighting for their rights. But there were many whites lives lost fighting for their rights too. Does that not count?

Count for what? One group fought for what they were denied. The other fought to keep what had been handed to them at birth, and which they were not really in much danger of losing. No. It doesn't "count" the way you mean it to.

I was at first offended when I heard the term "white privilege," too. I have never asked for or demanded any special treatment because of my race.

It took me a while to learn that you can't ask for this. You can't demand it. You also cannot refuse it. It exists, and your skin color is your membership card. You don't even have to think of yourself as white, so long as others think it for you.

Oh, fine. I have two links and two excerpts for you. I am cynical that you will read them in full, or at all. I would be delighted if you would come back with questions, however, that we can discuss.

Excerpt One:

Why is it important to define “white privilege” so carefully? Because, in part, many people want to deny that it exists at all, especially in response to other people’s assertions that it is at work in some particular situation, that it exists unjustly and so should be dismantled. This pattern of assertion and denial is itself racialized: for the most part, people of color say white people enjoy white privilege, while white people for the most part deny not only that they have it, but that such a thing even exists. I have been assured countless times by white people that there is no such thing as
white privilege and that the very idea is nonsensical.


(For example, among the objections to the idea of white privilege, there is one which deserves some consideration here. Given the fact of a systematically unjust society, such as is the case in the U.S., the differential possession of basic human and political rights becomes a privilege. Yes, every person by virtue of being a person has the right to enjoy and possess certain rights. But, in fact, over the long course of U.S. history only white people have enjoyed and possessed the rights which they loudly proclaimed were fundamentally human rights. I think it is fitting and accurate, in such an unjust situation, to call the racially differential possession and enjoyment of human rights a privilege arising out of particular social relations.)

Link:
http://whiteprivilege.com/definition/

Excerpt Two:
"Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntyre:

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.

Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable. As we in women's studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having white privilege must ask, "having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?"

Daily effects of white privilege

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

There are 50 items in McIntyre's knapsack. Here are just a few, pulled from the list:

1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

You can't ask for this treatment. You can't refuse it. It exists as part of social privilege, but benefits whites.

Read the whole list, please. I found it pretty eye-opening.

[WildCat]

You didn't even try to dispute my facts, or to present evidence against any of my facts, you just told me that I haven't presented any facts, a falsehood evident to anyone who has read this thread.
An unsupported allegation is not a fact.

Tell me, do you have any Creationist blood in you?
I didn't know Creationist was a race.

[WildCat]

Sheesh. Why do so many right-wing Americans have to stick up for scumbag clowns like Limbugh and Coulter? I mean, I'm to your left, but I don't feel some crazy urge to stick up for Mao Tse Tung. What's the matter with you?
Can't speak for Klaymore, but I am not a fan of Limbaugh's. But that doesn't mean I have to jump on any bandwagon that misrepresents what he said and why. Obviously, you feel differently.

Hell, I defended John Kerry a few days ago on this forum. It's all about critical evaluation of the facts, you should try it sometime.

[Drysdale]

I'm still not sure what you are saying. You're saying it's ok today for white men to be held to different standards because the majority of young males in this country just happened to be white and priveleged in our history?

No, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.

I'm not sure I understand what this means in response to my post.


Quote:
There's a lot of white privileged lives lost to enable you to say what you just said.
I have no idea why you want to use such a blatant appeal to emotion, but it won't work. Not on me.

Who's appealing to emotion. I'm simply stating a fact.


Quote:
Is that not going to just continue the cycle? I think it's time we moved on and treated everyone equally for their actions regardless of race.
Good luck. It is doubtful racism will end in my lifetime or yours.

So why bother trying eh? Thats your point?

Quote:
Lets do this though.
Pick another country, whatever the racial/religious majority is in that country could you not say the exact same thing? If not racial lines then sectarian lines?
I have no idea and don't think that's a tenable argument. Other countries don't have America's history to deal with. We do.

No, they have their own issues to deal with. Some much larger and more severe than ours. You're making it sound like the rest of the world is utopia and America is hell to live in. My point is quit thinking like we are the only nation with issues. We are'nt.


Quote:
In all cultures I think the case can be made the young men are privileged.
They worked, they made the laws,they fought the wars,they built the houses,cities etc. Is that not historically true in all cultures?
I cannot help it if you are not familiar with the concept of white privilege and don't understand it. I would undertake to give you links where you might learn more, but that has never done me or my arguments any good here. No one will visit or read the links I provide. I find it a waste of my time.

Again with the white privilege. I'm not going to hate myself for being white.
And I am white, just not young and angry ;)
If you feel better hating yourself that's your perogative.

Quote:
In this country the young men just happened to be in the majority white.
"Just happen to?" Um. Okay. The founding of the U.S. is nothing but sheer coincidence and happenstance?

Well yea. Pretty much. Kinda like the founding of any country.


Quote:
Many other races did indeed help build this country,not just white or black.
And yes there were many black lives lost fighting for their rights. But there were many whites lives lost fighting for their rights too. Does that not count?
Count for what? One group fought for what they were denied. The other fought to keep what had been handed to them at birth, and which they were not really in much danger of losing. No. It doesn't "count" the way you mean it to.
I think you need to go back and read why the Founding fathers left europe.
We were'nt handed anything at birth historically. You wanna skip that part of history for whatever reason.

I was at first offended when I heard the term "white privilege," too. I have never asked for or demanded any special treatment because of my race.

It took me a while to learn that you can't ask for this. You can't demand it. You also cannot refuse it. It exists, and your skin color is your membership card. You don't even have to think of yourself as white, so long as others think it for you.

Oh, fine. I have two links and two excerpts for you. I am cynical that you will read them in full, or at all. I would be delighted if you would come back with questions, however, that we can discuss.

I'll look those over.

[Dr Adequate]

An unsupported allegation is not a fact. It is if it happens to be true.

Duh.

Which of the facts which I've presented do you dispute?

The burden of proof would seem to lie on you.

You say that Ehrenstein was "questioning Obama's blackness". This would appear to be untrue, which I guess is why you have produced no quotations from Ehrenstein to support this.

You say that Biden "expressed amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright." That is not what he said, which is why you can produce no quotations from Biden to support this.

I claim that Limbaugh said this:

"So your attempt to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama is worthless because you're just -- you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a real black. As Biden said, he's clean and articulate."

That is a direct quotation.

[Dr Adequate]

Can't speak for Klaymore, but I am not a fan of Limbaugh's. But that doesn't mean I have to jump on any bandwagon that misrepresents what he said and why. Obviously, you feel differently. What's the point of lying to me about how I feel?

Whom do you hope to deceive?

Hell, I defended John Kerry a few days ago on this forum. That's awful big of you.

It's all about critical evaluation of the facts, you should try it sometime. There is a huge gulf between critical evaluation of the facts and agreeing with you.

A huge, huge gulf.

I am not inclined to cross it.

[The Painter]

You say that Biden "expressed amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright." That is not what he said, which is why you can produce no quotations from Biden to support this.



How's this for his quotation? Good enough for you? Hell you don’t even need the quote, you can watch it yourself. Just click the link.


"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Watch Biden's comments and Obama's reaction )

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/index.html


Why some much interest in a radio host you've never heard? Are things that boring where you live? Nothing going on over there? You talk more about Rush Limbaugh than you do about Tony Blair. What’s up wit dat?

[slingblade]

Did you suddenly forget how to use the quote function? Why have you instead bolded everything I said?




I'm still not sure what you are saying. You're saying it's ok today for white men to be held to different standards because the majority of young males in this country just happened to be white and priveleged in our history?

No, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.

I'm not sure I understand what this means in response to my post.

How can you miss it? Are you being deliberately obtuse? You plainly said you didn't understand me, tried to insert words in my mouth, and now claim you don't understand what a clearly worded response has to do with your post?

Again, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.


Quote:
There's a lot of white privileged lives lost to enable you to say what you just said.
I have no idea why you want to use such a blatant appeal to emotion, but it won't work. Not on me.

Who's appealing to emotion. I'm simply stating a fact.

No. You are using a blatant appeal to emotion. And again, it. won't. work.



Is that not going to just continue the cycle? I think it's time we moved on and treated everyone equally for their actions regardless of race. [/I]
Good luck. It is doubtful racism will end in my lifetime or yours.

So why bother trying eh? Thats your point?

I make my points very clear. That you continue to ask me "what's your point?" shows you are more interested in scoring points than in having a rational dialogue in which both of us might learn something.

If you have anything to teach me beyond the usual round of playground-level attempts to poke at me, I'd be interested in seeing it.

And with a sigh, I state the obvious, as you no doubt intended (another waste of time): if I wasn't interested in helping racism end, I'd hardly waste my time posting all of this, paying good money to take college courses on the subject so I can educate myself about it, and all the other things I do to try to help it end.

You asked "why don't we just treat each other as equals?" Because we have a history we aren't examining in relation to a present we keep trying to deny. Because racism isn't found so much in the overt, individual actions (although those are the ones that get our attention!), but in the covert, systemic ones. When what you're fighting is hard to see, it's very hard to fight.

If you aren't even interested in looking at what unwitting role you and your society combine to play in racism, then no, it will not end in my lifetime, or yours.

And when it does end, it will not have been, at any point, an easy or painless process for anyone involved. We are all involved. If you never grow uncomfortable in your discussions on racism, you aren't really discussing it.


No, they [other countries] have their own issues to deal with. Some much larger and more severe than ours. You're making it sound like the rest of the world is utopia and America is hell to live in. My point is quit thinking like we are the only nation with issues. We are'nt.

This is a strawman argument. For the purposes of this discussion, the issues in other countries don't enter into it. We aren't talking about other countries here. We are talking about how a phrase like "magic negro" can still appear and be understood in this country. About what it signifies in this country.

Again with the white privilege. I'm not going to hate myself for being white.
And I am white, just not young and angry ;)
If you feel better hating yourself that's your perogative.

Strawmen enough for a bonfire.

Who asked you to hate yourself? Is asking you to look at your place in American society, race, and history asking you to hate yourself? How does anyone examine the concept of race and racism without looking at himself, his own race, its place in history, and what time has made of all those things?

There is not one mention of a need for or a call for white hatred in any of my posts. You are creating that argument and then applying it to me, while avoiding my actual argument. That's a strawman fallacy.

Use of fallacies inhibits progressive dialogue. Try to avoid them in future.


I think you need to go back and read why the Founding fathers left europe.
We were'nt handed anything at birth historically. You wanna skip that part of history for whatever reason.

I think you need to understand that when we are talking about American rights, we are talking about those that Americans have by birthright. Not about those that Europeans wrested from other Europeans in order to then create their own set of rights for their own new country.

I never had to ask anyone or fight anyone for my right to vote. It was indeed handed to me, and yes, on a bloody platter, but it was still just handed to me. When I turned 18, I signed a card and cast my vote. I know other people had to fight and die for some of my rights. But some rights have always belonged to members of my race, simply because they were members of my race.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe white women have always had an equal right, alongside white men, to own guns. I could be wrong about that, so I'd appreciate knowing for sure.

I'll look those over.

Thank you.

[Drysdale]

Did you suddenly forget how to use the quote function? Why have you instead bolded everything I said?

Sorry, still trying to figure out how to use individual quote function. Dont use a lot of msg boards. I'm doing all these manually.



How can you miss it? Are you being deliberately obtuse? You plainly said you didn't understand me, tried to insert words in my mouth, and now claim you don't understand what a clearly worded response has to do with your post?

Again, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.

OK, lets try this. What does white privilege have to do with reverse racism which is basically what wer'e talking about?
I can see the white privilege point.
But the saying how's that feel yadda,yadda mess I'm not grasping.



No. You are using a blatant appeal to emotion. And again, it. won't. work.


I'm saying a lot of so-called privileged men lost their lives fighting for the freedom of you and me and many others so we may have this discussion.
If you can't appreciate that, which it appears you're indifferent to then lets just skip this remark.



I make my points very clear. That you continue to ask me "what's your point?" shows you are more interested in scoring points than in having a rational dialogue in which both of us might learn something.

If you have anything to teach me beyond the usual round of playground-level attempts to poke at me, I'd be interested in seeing it.

And with a sigh, I state the obvious, as you no doubt intended (another waste of time): if I wasn't interested in helping racism end, I'd hardly waste my time posting all of this, paying good money to take college courses on the subject so I can educate myself about it, and all the other things I do to try to help it end.

You asked "why don't we just treat each other as equals?" Because we have a history we aren't examining in relation to a present we keep trying to deny. Because racism isn't found so much in the overt, individual actions (although those are the ones that get our attention!), but in the covert, systemic ones. When what you're fighting is hard to see, it's very hard to fight.

If you aren't even interested in looking at what unwitting role you and your society combine to play in racism, then no, it will not end in my lifetime, or yours.

And when it does end, it will not have been, at any point, an easy or painless process for anyone involved. We are all involved. If you never grow uncomfortable in your discussions on racism, you aren't really discussing it.


OK, There's a fine line between racism and prejudice. I think there will always be prejudice. It oftentimes I think gets confused for racism. We are all(well most certainly) prejudiced generally toward
1)our families
2)our race
3)our homes ie. area of residence,block,city,state,country,etc.

the last 2 not necessarily in that order. It's not out of the ordinary at all to root for lets say in this case a boxer of your own race. Now after you find out other boxer is from your hometown/country allegiances are swapped.
There is completely nothing wrong with that. There are people that will tell you thats racism. And by the same token just because you dont get hired because you're not white doesnt mean it's because of your skin color.
Prejudices come in all shapes and colors. That person may be skinny,fat,blonde,tall,short, subconciously remind you of someone in your past you hated etc.,etc. Everytime a non-white individual doesnt get a job it's not because of white privilege. I will read those links more, but a lot of that looks like psycho babble to me. Of course, maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it all. There is that possibility.


This is a strawman argument. For the purposes of this discussion, the issues in other countries don't enter into it. We aren't talking about other countries here. We are talking about how a phrase like "magic negro" can still appear and be understood in this country. About what it signifies in this country.


You sound like you have a big issue with America in general. Just wanted to make a point that we are'nt the only country with these issues. I'll drop it,no biggie.


Strawmen enough for a bonfire.

Who asked you to hate yourself? Is asking you to look at your place in American society, race, and history asking you to hate yourself? How does anyone examine the concept of race and racism without looking at himself, his own race, its place in history, and what time has made of all those things?

There is not one mention of a need for or a call for white hatred in any of my posts. You are creating that argument and then applying it to me, while avoiding my actual argument. That's a strawman fallacy.

Use of fallacies inhibits progressive dialogue. Try to avoid them in future.


Go back and reread your post #159. Thats what it souds like to me.



I think you need to understand that when we are talking about American rights, we are talking about those that Americans have by birthright. Not about those that Europeans wrested from other Europeans in order to then create their own set of rights for their own new country.

I never had to ask anyone or fight anyone for my right to vote. It was indeed handed to me, and yes, on a bloody platter, but it was still just handed to me. When I turned 18, I signed a card and cast my vote. I know other people had to fight and die for some of my rights. But some rights have always belonged to members of my race, simply because they were members of my race.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe white women have always had an equal right, alongside white men, to own guns. I could be wrong about that, so I'd appreciate knowing for sure.



Thank you.

Not sure about the right for women to possess arms.
But does'nt everyone who is a legal citizen have these same rights now?
You seem to want to disregard that. Why?

[Drysdale]

That is true, but we do not have a level playing field, not at all.

1. Why should the fact that your gradfather went to Yale matter in admissions?

2. The good ole boy network exists and is real. If you aren't a good ole boy than you can't use it's influence?

3. there is great disequity is the proportion of jobs available and school funding in different areas. Often it is not that the people are "lazy", they don't have a car and no access to a good job.

4. Discrimination still exists, it is not as prevalent and often seen when it doesn't exist but it is real. Redlining in mortages is a good example.



There are things that need to be done to level the playing field, AA is a poor solution at best. And it should be based upon socio-economic status.

When we get rid of corporate welfare, then I will be for getting rid of social welfare.(Except for those who really can't work.)


You know, one point on this I forgot to include.
I think school vouchers would be great for improving education of those less fortunate. You're a teacher I seem to remember reading. Hope I'm not wrong on that. But if you are what are your feelings on school vouchers?

[Dr Adequate]

How's this for his quotation? Good enough for you? Hell you don’t even need the quote, you can watch it yourself. Just click the link. Well, cheers for posting a link which proves you to be a liar and a fool.

Why some much interest in a radio host you've never heard? Are things that boring where you live? Nothing going on over there? You talk more about Rush Limbaugh than you do about Tony Blair. What’s up wit dat? Yes, for once you're right.

The politics of the UK are consensus politics. We are all social democrats, the parties merely vie to deliver the promise of social democracy most justly and efficiently. The looney right and the fundies have no influence.

When I see you guys all debating about American politics, it's hard not to be interested and pitch in. It is indeed more interesting than the politics we have over here.

[Darth Rotor]

When I see you guys all debating about American politics, it's hard not to be interested and pitch in. It is indeed more interesting than the politics we have over here.

Perhaps you ought to become a NASCAR fan.

That noisy hairball of a sporting event is of interest to those with a morbid fascination of a messy demise of participants unknown. The drama is: who will roll over, engulfed in flames? Who will get pushed into the wall? Who will die?

It's a bit easier to watch than Grand Prix, as it's all in a pretty compact locale, and it is in cars somewhat like what you yourself drive, unlike F1.

DR

[The Painter]

Well, cheers for posting a link which proves you to be a liar and a fool.

You're going to have explain that, because from from here it seems the shoe is on the other foot.


It the link to Biden you said wanted to see. It shows he did say it.

[Dr Adequate]

You're going to have explain that, because from from here it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

It the link to Biden you said wanted to see. It shows he did say it. No, it turns out that you are still a liar or a fool, because Biden did not "express amazement" that "a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright."

This is why you can't quote him saying "it", and why you can't say what "it" is, whereas I can quote Limbaugh word for word.

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps you ought to become a NASCAR fan.

That noisy hairball of a sporting event is of interest to those with a morbid fascination of a messy demise of participants unknown. The drama is: who will roll over, engulfed in flames? Who will get pushed into the wall? Who will die? Please do explain exactly what you meant by that or apologise. Your call.

[steverino]

Please do explain exactly what you meant by that or apologise. Your call.

Darth is not insulting you. He is making fun of America's shallow, cultural flash by drawing a parallel between a low-brow "All-American sport" thats appeal lies in crashes and mishaps, and the American presidential campaign.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, alright. Just so long as his use of the word "you" didn't refer to me in any way.

[Thunder]

Barak is a smart guy. He is talented. He has good ideas. If he gets 1% of my consideration because it would be a great example of how far america has come...big deal. its not like he isnt as qualified as clinton was in 1992.

[Klaymore]

Look, I know others have discussed it, but here's my take. When I heard the term "magic negro," outside of any particular context, I immediately defined it for myself as: "The magic negro is the one who, by attaining prominence in some high field, never before attained by a non-white, will make racism magically go away simply by his attainment." I've no idea if that's what meant by the term or not.


It's not what is meant by the term. It would be constructive to the debate if you would read the article that prompted Rush's use of the term. There is also an article which discusses Rush's use of the term, and a link to the audio segment of the program in which he endeavors to hijack the epithet. All of this would take less than 20 minutes. If you just read the articles, it will probably be less than 10.



It's just what I thought might be meant, and if so, it's obviously fallacious, a pipe-dream, and racist.


Please tell us how you define the term "racist."

[The Painter]

because Biden did not "express amazement" that "a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright."

Now you're just being obtuse.

[Dr Adequate]

Now you're just being obtuse. I am being accurate.

Biden did not "express amazement" that "a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright."

He said that Obama was the first black Presidential candidate to display these qualities.

Which part of this do you not understand?

[slingblade]

It's not what is meant by the term. It would be constructive to the debate if you would read the article that prompted Rush's use of the term. There is also an article which discusses Rush's use of the term, and a link to the audio segment of the program in which he endeavors to hijack the epithet. All of this would take less than 20 minutes. If you just read the articles, it will probably be less than 10.

Okay. :) I read one article, but I'd rather do more research, as you suggest.


Please tell us how you define the term "racist."

Racism is the institutionalized oppression of groups of people based on their perceived race. "Racist" is a term that describes an event or action arising out of that institutionalized oppression.

[Darth Rotor]

Please do explain exactly what you meant by that or apologise. Your call.
Apologize for what?

You noted an interest in a nastier hairball, politiclally, in our country than yours, so I made an intuitive leap that perhaps in sport spectating, you might find NASCAR appealing, as it is quite the hairball spectated by those with the morbid fascination with the macabre, one that parallels yours in politics. The references to F1 and Grand Prix were to illustrate how the appeals differ among race car spectating for those so moved.

The you was expressly used in the second person singular, which means, Dr A.

Where is the offense to be taken? Is it sitting on your shoulder, in chip form?

DR

[Dancing David]

True, true, money talks, good will walks.

[Dr Adequate]

Apologize for what? For saying that I have a "morbid fascination with the macabre" and would take pleasure from the "messy demise of participants unknown", "engulfed in flames".

When you accuse me of being a psychopath and a sadist --- on the basis that I take an interest in American politics --- I don't think you should be quite so surprised if I take offense. Indeed, I think most people would guess that to be your express intention.

But perhaps you had some other end in view?

[Tailgater]

How's this for his quotation? Good enough for you? Hell you don’t even need the quote, you can watch it yourself. Just click the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/index.html


Why some much interest in a radio host you've never heard? Are things that boring where you live? Nothing going on over there? You talk more about Rush Limbaugh than you do about Tony Blair. What’s up wit dat?

I thought it was quite telling at the end when they quoted him as saying, "You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I'm not joking."

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Wow, that doesn't express amazement? I would be amazed if he was the first black candidate I met like that.

I am being accurate.

Biden did not "express amazement" that "a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright."

He said that Obama was the first black Presidential candidate to display these qualities.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Ohhhhh I get it. When someone from the "right" makes a parody over a political figure like Sharpton singing comments and opinions made by other media, it's racist. When someone from the "left" makes a comment that is pretty much racist to any black person who has ever run for office, we blabber about "he was not amazed so you are a liar or a fool". Nice.

[Tailgater]

-Rush wasn't the one questioning Obama's blackness (that was Ehrenstein et al) or expressing amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright (that was Joe Biden) or who has made a career out of race-baiting (that would be Al Sharpton).

You say that Biden "expressed amazement that a black man could actually be articulate, clean, and bright." That is not what he said, which is why you can produce no quotations from Biden to support this.

Last I checked, Obama is a black man.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That is what he said. Is it the reading part you have a problem with or just the comprehension?

[steverino]

Apologize for what?

You noted an interest in a nastier hairball, politiclally, in our country than yours, so I made an intuitive leap that perhaps in sport spectating, you might find NASCAR appealing, as it is quite the hairball spectated by those with the morbid fascination with the macabre, one that parallels yours in politics. The references to F1 and Grand Prix were to illustrate how the appeals differ among race car spectating for those so moved.

The you was expressly used in the second person singular, which means, Dr A.

Where is the offense to be taken? Is it sitting on your shoulder, in chip form?

DR

This race car reference sounds fascinating, but I can't follow it at all.
I thought Dr. A. was simply saying that British politics are staid, and our system is more rough-and-tumble. :confused:

[Dr Adequate]

Last I checked, Obama is a black man.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That is what he said. Is it the reading part you have a problem with or just the comprehension? Your gloss on his remarks.

Why not just quote him? What he said was not pretty. I do not see how this fact can be turned into an apologia for Limbaugh

Ohhhhh I get it. When someone from the "right" makes a parody over a political figure like Sharpton singing comments and opinions made by other media, it's racist. When someone from the "left" makes a comment that is pretty much racist to any black person who has ever run for office, we blabber about "he was not amazed so you are a liar or a fool". Nice. You think I'm treating Limbaugh and Biden differently? Not at all. I think Limbaugh should apologise and shut his fool mouth too.

[Darth Rotor]

For saying that I have a "morbid fascination with the macabre" and would take pleasure from the "messy demise of participants unknown", "engulfed in flames".

When you accuse me of being a psychopath and a sadist --- on the basis that I take an interest in American politics --- I don't think you should be quite so surprised if I take offense. Indeed, I think most people would guess that to be your express intention.

But perhaps you had some other end in view?
Perhaps if you were spring loaded to take offense, then that would be how you chose to take it. I guess our resident poet has trouble with metaphor and simile? (Your professed interest in the messier entertainment of American politics, for which NASCAR can be a metaphor.)

This cannot be, as you are quite the wit, so I am led to believe that you were looking for an excuse to claim offense, and crafted one, where none was intended.

Suit yourself.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

A metaphor, I see.

So when you said that I have a "morbid fascination with the macabre" and would take pleasure from the "messy demise of participants unknown", "engulfed in flames", was that a metaphor for something nice?

When you say metaphorically that I'm a sadistic ghoul, is that perhaps intended to flatter me?

Do explain.

[Darth Rotor]

A metaphor, I see.

So when you said that I have a "morbid fascination with the macabre" and would take pleasure from the "messy demise of participants unknown", "engulfed in flames", was that a metaphor for something nice?
No, it was a metaphor for American politics as compared to (from you) the duller Brit variety, which you stated you found to be more entertaining. We have now run about the mulberry bush twice. Dizzy yet?
When you say metaphorically that I'm a sadistic ghoul, is that perhaps intended to flatter me?

As I never called you a ghoul, but you just called yourself one, I can't say.

If you really want to understand my meaning, you should pay more attention to what I actually write and less attention to the voices in your head.

Does that line sound familiar to you?

DR

[WildCat]

Why not just quote him? What he said was not pretty. I do not see how this fact can be turned into an apologia for Limbaugh.
Just curious, when Monty Python did their "Spanish Inquisition" skit, did you think they were making fun of victims of the Spanish Inquisition? You seem to have troubl understanding parody, and who is poking fun at whom.

[Dr Adequate]

As I never called you a ghoul, but you just called yourself one, I can't say. Look up the words ghoul, ghoulish.

If you really want to understand my meaning, you should pay more attention to what I actually write and less attention to the voices in your head.

Does that line sound familiar to you? Yes. Let me repeat it.

If you really want to understand my meaning, you should pay more attention to what I actually write and less attention to the voices in your head.

For example, I did not say that you used the word ghoul, nor did I put it in quotation marks, unlike my direct quotations.

Consider the following conversation.

A: You're a thief.
B: So you think I'm a criminal?
A: As I never called you a criminal, but you just called yourself one, I can't say.

Dolt.

[Dr Adequate]

Just curious, when Monty Python did their "Spanish Inquisition" skit, did you think they were making fun of victims of the Spanish Inquisition? No.

You seem to have troubl understanding parody, and who is poking fun at whom. No.

[Tailgater]

A: You're a thief.
B: So you think I'm a criminal?
A: As I never called you a criminal, but you just called yourself one, I can't say.
.

LOL

More like-
A:If you want to make some money, you should check out this good job in town.
B: So you think I'm a criminal?
A: As I never called you a criminal, but you just called yourself one, I can't say.

When you turn a joke about comparing American politics to a NASCAR race in to some kind of personal attack, it is obvious that you just don't get humor outside your less "interesting" world. I would have said "boring", but I wasn't sure if I would "offend" you.

[Dancing David]

Groups of white males have been terribly treated in America's history. The Irish would be one example. Have-nots from the British Isles were kidnapped, and sent to the Caribbean as indentured servants. Half died on ships coming over. When we think "hillbilly in Tennessee," we are actually saying "white ni**er," as some of these mountain people are decendants of white slaves. We make fun of them, but not southern rural blacks, because in our society we feel that "whites should know better."

OOOOK?


What group of white males is entitled to thier current rage and angst about thier already priveled position.

Move goal posts much?

[Dancing David]

Oh, I agree for the most part. But a lot of these are class discrimination, not racial discrimination. And it's not all just race. When you see more of other races employed in particular fields you need to step back and look at the specifics.

For example, I was in a management positon at my last job before I moved on.

Lets say we had 5 openings.
You would not believe how many young black men came in there for a job interview in tank tops,pants off their butts, hats on crooked etc.

Now on the surface if we hired
2 white guys ,2 hispanic and only 1 black it looks bad numbers wise.
What you dont see is the details of those that applied. And that does'nt take into consideration the ones that just are'nt qualified.

And then you'll have some blacks(I dont know why this is, but high %'s of all racial grievances are predominantly black) use race as a crutch.
We had one guy(this was a pharmaceutical company) that would fall asleep counting pills,or doing QA. It was bad. We tried to fire him(he had transferred
from another store so had tenure) and it was hell. Anyone in that store was being called a racist who was'nt black for trying to hold him accountable.
We finally pointed a security camera at him which usually is pointed somewhere else just for evidence.

Bad employees and applicants come in all shapes and seizes, I agree that race is not as much of an issue as class. But then I have the magic skin color that allows me more access without prejudice.

There are issues besides the dress someone has one when it comes to race, redlining is a good example, as is the way certain jobs are handed out in the good ole boy network.


And to me, this goes back to the rap music and movies etc. It's cool in some circles to be a dropout and not work. Bill Cosby caught hell for basically saying that but I think a lot of the black people feel exactly like that. They are giving them a bad reputation.

That music is a lot of the problem I think.

Music reflects culture and the appeal of certain ideas.

[Dancing David]

I'm still not sure what you are saying. You're saying it's ok today for white men to be held to different standards because the majority of young males in this country just happened to be white and priveleged in our history?

No, I'm saying that white privilege exists. Not that it's okay. Simply that it is there.

I'm not sure I understand what this means in response to my post.

I'll put it this way Mr. Drysdale, if you look like a hog and you try to pull a carriage, everyone is gonna say"Hey there is a hog pulling a carriage!", even if you are a horse and can pull that carriage as good as any other horse.



Quote:
There's a lot of white privileged lives lost to enable you to say what you just said.
I have no idea why you want to use such a blatant appeal to emotion, but it won't work. Not on me.

Who's appealing to emotion. I'm simply stating a fact.

Yeah right. Lower classes have always comprised the majority of the armed forces, do you mean the American revolution when the priviledged white classes fought for the rights of more priviledged white males? Or the civil war whne slavery was an after thought? Lets see a black soldier can not eat in the restraunts in downtown Miami during WWII, while a german POW can? Or an asian who doesn't consider themselves japanese is sent to a concentration camp and memebers of the Bundespartei in the Midwest aren't? Who was put behind the trigger in Vietnam and who got a college defferment?


There are multiple meanings to privilege.


Quote:
Is that not going to just continue the cycle? I think it's time we moved on and treated everyone equally for their actions regardless of race.
Good luck. It is doubtful racism will end in my lifetime or yours.

So why bother trying eh? Thats your point?

Uh, I hate to tell you this but if you are not aware of racism you must live in a hole in the ground. Racism exists, it is not as b;atant or prevalent, but still there. You know we still have "sundowner" towns in the Midwest don't you and the KKK and Aryan Nation.

Try being a hispanic or african amaerican someday, hang out with them.


Quote:
Lets do this though.
Pick another country, whatever the racial/religious majority is in that country could you not say the exact same thing? If not racial lines then sectarian lines?
I have no idea and don't think that's a tenable argument. Other countries don't have America's history to deal with. We do.

No, they have their own issues to deal with. Some much larger and more severe than ours. You're making it sound like the rest of the world is utopia and America is hell to live in. My point is quit thinking like we are the only nation with issues. We are'nt.

Throw straw much?

The issue is that racism exists, saying that somebody else does something worse is not the issue.



Quote:
In all cultures I think the case can be made the young men are privileged.
They worked, they made the laws,they fought the wars,they built the houses,cities etc. Is that not historically true in all cultures?
I cannot help it if you are not familiar with the concept of white privilege and don't understand it. I would undertake to give you links where you might learn more, but that has never done me or my arguments any good here. No one will visit or read the links I provide. I find it a waste of my time.

Again with the white privilege. I'm not going to hate myself for being white.
And I am white, just not young and angry ;)
If you feel better hating yourself that's your perogative.

Throw more straw more often? The privelege of being white is a magic ticket for many things in this country.

No one said to hate yourself Oh Glorious King of Straw!



Quote:
In this country the young men just happened to be in the majority white.
"Just happen to?" Um. Okay. The founding of the U.S. is nothing but sheer coincidence and happenstance?

Well yea. Pretty much. Kinda like the founding of any country.

You are avoiding the issue, this country gave privilege to the weathy, and to the whites. And then the Germans, Irish, Italians, and very late in the game the asians.



Quote:
Many other races did indeed help build this country,not just white or black.
And yes there were many black lives lost fighting for their rights. But there were many whites lives lost fighting for their rights too. Does that not count?
Count for what? One group fought for what they were denied. The other fought to keep what had been handed to them at birth, and which they were not really in much danger of losing. No. It doesn't "count" the way you mean it to.
I think you need to go back and read why the Founding fathers left europe.
We were'nt handed anything at birth historically. You wanna skip that part of history for whatever reason.

And you want to create a new history where prejudice doesn't exist currently, racism is alive and well.

Redlining is real, and based upon race.


I was at first offended when I heard the term "white privilege," too. I have never asked for or demanded any special treatment because of my race.

It took me a while to learn that you can't ask for this. You can't demand it. You also cannot refuse it. It exists, and your skin color is your membership card. You don't even have to think of yourself as white, so long as others think it for you.

Oh, fine. I have two links and two excerpts for you. I am cynical that you will read them in full, or at all. I would be delighted if you would come back with questions, however, that we can discuss.

I'll look those over.

[steverino]

OOOOK?


What group of white males is entitled to thier current rage and angst about thier already priveled position.

Move goal posts much?

I have no idea what you are asking, nor how it relates to my post. I was responding to someone else suggesting that there has been no white oppression in America's past.

[Drysdale]

Bad employees and applicants come in all shapes and seizes, I agree that race is not as much of an issue as class. But then I have the magic skin color that allows me more access without prejudice.

There are issues besides the dress someone has one when it comes to race, redlining is a good example, as is the way certain jobs are handed out in the good ole boy network.


Music reflects culture and the appeal of certain ideas.

I absoluely agree. But not all bad employees and applicants can cry racism if they're not hired can they?

That's my point. It's the old crying wolf adage. When it's screamed all the time you have a tendency to tune it out when it can indeed be blatant racism.

And if music only reflects culture why did I not see many guys dressing like gangsters before I heard the rappers on videos dressing like that?

Seems to be the other way around just as much to me.

[Darth Rotor]

Dolt.
I see, your wit has imploded.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Dr A expresses an interest in American politics (spectating) as more entertaining than the dull English brand. (sport)

DR offers, with humorous intent "if you like this, you make like this similar but different spectator sport" using car racing as an analogy for politics. Their similarity, and the allure and excitement, is in racing, someone wins, and the bloody mess that is the process (the NASCAR race, with its potential for a flaming, bloody wreck, the American political scrum, with its potential for self immolation and self destruction, see Gary Hart and Howard Dean for recent examples.)

So, if you like "this bloody mess," American politics, as entertainment, perhaps you'd like "this bloody mess," (similar in form, but not in detail) of NASCAR. The attraction to both is in watching to see who wins, at the simple level, but what I see as the morbid fascination with wrecks that keeps people coming back for more at the "fan" level.

Dr A takes offense, for reasons of his own, as well as playing the "deliberately obtuse and literal" card, and now devolves to name calling.

Not on your "A" game, Dr A, but I am sure you will get it back.

DR

[steverino]

Dr A expresses...

DR offers...

Dr A takes...

"A" game, Dr A...

DR...



Can one of you please change your name. I want to know who I am routing for here.:p

[Darth Rotor]

Can one of you please change your name. I want to know who I am routing for here.:p
Since I don't care at all for NASCAR, you may rout for any carpenter you see in the race.

DR

[Dancing David]

I have no idea what you are asking, nor how it relates to my post. I was responding to someone else suggesting that there has been no white oppression in America's past.

My mistake, pardon, pardon, moving on...

[Drysdale]

I'll put it this way Mr. Drysdale, if you look like a hog and you try to pull a carriage, everyone is gonna say"Hey there is a hog pulling a carriage!", even if you are a horse and can pull that carriage as good as any other horse.

Not even going to get into this analogy.


Yeah right. Lower classes have always comprised the majority of the armed forces, do you mean the American revolution when the priviledged white classes fought for the rights of more priviledged white males? Or the civil war whne slavery was an after thought? Lets see a black soldier can not eat in the restraunts in downtown Miami during WWII, while a german POW can? Or an asian who doesn't consider themselves japanese is sent to a concentration camp and memebers of the Bundespartei in the Midwest aren't? Who was put behind the trigger in Vietnam and who got a college defferment?

There are multiple meanings to privilege.

I agree. I'm not saying none of that happened or was right. There were many men from the north who were adamantly opposed to slavery and fought on those beliefs. There were many men from the south who did'nt like it either.
Also some from north and south who did want to keep it. And yep that was mainly the fat cats. Does that diminish the lives lost fighting for their rights?
Sides were drawn by the politicians and you fought because that's what you were told to do. And yes lower classes do still account for a large portion of military. Not much has changed there. And the segregation and prejudices were deplorable. But does all that diminsh the lives lost for the rights we have now? Would you rather live under a Nazi regime? Or Radical Islam as far as that goes? America isnt now and never has been a perfect society. But we at least NOW have a country that has been taking measures to try and ensure everyone's rights are equal. Can you point out a perfect society to me?



Uh, I hate to tell you this but if you are not aware of racism you must live in a hole in the ground. Racism exists, it is not as b;atant or prevalent, but still there. You know we still have "sundowner" towns in the Midwest don't you and the KKK and Aryan Nation.

Try being a hispanic or african amaerican someday, hang out with them.

Never said racism doesnt exist. Dont put words in my mouth.
What are these sundowner towns? I've heard this remark but I'd like to know where they are. I dont ever hear that. KKK and Aryan nation? Yea, they're still there and about as powerful as the flat earth society. Cmon, when's the last time these groups did anything?

As far as the hanging out with other races remark I have, many times. I grew up around black folks. I've had black roomates,girlfriends and spanish too, many times over. It's not unusual at all moretimes than not for me to be sitting with the black guys at breaks instead of the white. I've always had good rapport with people regardless of race. And I've had white guys call me a n---- lover etc. I know it's out there. I'll just usually steer clear of them.
And I've had some pretty heated discussions along these lines with more than just a few black guys or girls. But I'm not a bigot who tries to act like I'm so concerned with racial equality then move away from my house because lot of blacks moving in around me. There's one other white family in our block. Doesnt bother me a bit. So dont come across with the I dont understand crap. I probably understand better than most.


Throw straw much?

The issue is that racism exists, saying that somebody else does something worse is not the issue.

Again, I never said it didnt. When I refer to other countries I'm pointing out to be appreciative for what we have instead of just whining about how unjust our history is. Man's history isnt pretty as a whole. Tired of the America bashing.



Throw more straw more often? The privelege of being white is a magic ticket for many things in this country.


No one said to hate yourself Oh Glorious King of Straw!

Care to quote some specifics here? You may be right, I dont know. I'd like to hear the specifics though.


You are avoiding the issue, this country gave privilege to the weathy, and to the whites. And then the Germans, Irish, Italians, and very late in the game the asians.

And you want to create a new history where prejudice doesn't exist currently, racism is alive and well.

Redlining is real, and based upon race.


I'm not avoiding anything. I know there were many prejudices and indeed still are in this country. Quit whining about the past and move on is my point.
Reparations doesnt work. Stick with treating EVERYONE equally and we'll get past it. To continue to moan about past digressions does'nt work.
If your spouse is unfaithful and you love them and decide you want to stay with them in spite of it you dont keep bringing it up do you? You move on and put it behind you no? It's the same principle here. Not that hard to figure out.

And to be honest, to get back to the crux of this thread it's more political now than anything else. If you're a liberal it's always about race.

Thats the bottom line.

[Dancing David]

You know, one point on this I forgot to include.
I think school vouchers would be great for improving education of those less fortunate. You're a teacher I seem to remember reading. Hope I'm not wrong on that. But if you are what are your feelings on school vouchers?

Teacher's aide with the ED kids at a middle school, I also have the thrill of covering the detention room.

The issue as I see it is one that the school vouchers will not fix.

For a variety of reasons from the past and current economics and a lack of geographic homogenaity there is a real problem with the ways that schools are funded that lies at the heart of why some schools succede and some schools fail.

There is a school district in the suburbs of Chicago that generates $25,000 per student and then there are inner city and rural school districts in Illinois that generate $5,000-$7,000 per student. The reasons for this are multiple, they involve industry moving to the suburbs, the tax code on farmland and the inequity of the anachronistic patchwork way that school funds are generated. So first off there is a total inequity in the way that school funds are generated that favors the kids in white upper class araes and disfavors everybody else.

Then there is the effect of the enviroments of poverty (rural and inner city) that make it harder for students to learn and succede in school.

So I would say that the first solution is to fund all schools equaly, secondly to begin to deal with the issues of poverty that impact students.

I don't know how schools vouchers would effect either of those two issues.

The inner city schools of Chicago fail for many reasons, the lack of equitable per capita funding, the enviroment of violence and poverty. I don't see how school vouchers would help with that. If you underfund the school, it will fail. If we as a society tolerate the violence and poverty (because they are in those neighborhoods) then the issues will continue.

So I don't see how removing money from a school that is already underfunded makes sense, to send it with the student to the private school. That is like saying that poor people should pay a higher tax rate because they have a lower income to begin with. If the school is underfunded does it make sense to say, well you failded so less money for you.

Then there is the whole issue of who will benefit from the voucher programs, certainly not people in poverty, but it is a great mechanism for helping middle class people send thier kids to private school and sacking the school that is not at fault for it's issues of preformance.

If you are poor a measly $5,000-7,000 is not going to allow you to send your kid to a private school, so it is a program that will only be used by the middle class.

So when schools are adequately funded, when each student gets the same access to start with and we begin to address the issues of poverty in the inner city and rural communities, then we can begin to evaluate which schools are failing and qwhich aren't. But until then I believe that the scvhool voucher program is just another way of helping the middle class and sacking schools that are already underfunded.