Michelle's moment.
I've
said before that I never cease to be amazed at how frightened America can be
of an angry Black man. That statement, as it turns out, was incomplete.
Despite her husband's insistence that spouses should not be fair game, Michelle
Obama has become a principal target of the Right. Condi, she ain't - and boy,
does that get under their skin. I don't have to link to their sexist and racist
garbage here to remind all of you of the ridiculousness that has circulated
about her: that she carries an abnormal level of resentment for a Black person
(which is to say, any at all) despite her high level of achievement. The Right
seems to think that every educated and financially successful Black American
(and/or woman, for that matter) should simply walk around thanking White folks,
and saying "What,
me
worry?"
This is the perception in which Michelle Obama has been living for the greater
part of her life, ever since the mother of a Princeton
freshman threatened to withdraw her daughter from the university if Michelle
LaVaughn Robinson remained her roommate. But even in that last sentence, I fall
victim to what the MSM at
large has been indulging in like so many turkeys at Thanksgiving - a desire to
feed us lazy accounts of Internet rumors (without debunking the obviously
false), scant actual reporting and the repetitive pundit commentary that has
been the tryptophan
of this election season.
I don't know Michelle Obama. And likely, neither do you.
The Obamas are doing their best to change that perception, and help America get to
know the "real Michelle". (You know, the one that actually seems to
exist, not the Fox News "baby
mama".) Today, Michelle was a guest-host on ABC's The View. (Some poor
souls actually live-blogged her performance here
and here.)
She got the front-page treatment from the New
York Times. Mrs. Obama will begin using a stump speech that will
emphasize her roots on the South Side with a hardworking, MS-afflicted father.
She'll be the subject of a cover story in the celebrity mag Us.
Michelle Obama seems to be in the throes of a full image makeover.
The question is, why?
We live in a society in which people can't stand to be made uncomfortable. This
applies to all of us, but sadly, the majority of our social conventions, at
least, are geared towards comforting people with a Eurocentric perspective on
American life. (Or "All-American" - pick your favorite code word. And these people I refer to are not all White.)
This is not necessarily intentional - many folks don't even know that they're
asking people of a different culture to capitulate to their norms. But here's
the thing - Michelle Obama has done everything possible to adhere to those
norms, exceeding within their boundaries and yet, remaining a strong
individual, wife, mother and professional that seems satisfied with her own
self-image and readily identifies with her African-American culture.
So really, this is all to make certain White people feel comfortable with putting a
Black woman in the White House. (Imagine if she were actually running for the
job in question.) When America
saw hints of a woman not completely mollified by her lofty education and
elevated station in life, folks couldn't deal. A woman whose femininity America can't
handle and whose honesty they refuse to recognize is worrisome to a lot of
people. I mean, "does
she love her country"?
Could she be blamed, despite her Ivy League education, for not being completely
in love with a country that within her lifetime, treated Blacks as second-class
citizens under the law? Could she be blamed, as the only descendant of African
slaves in her marriage, for carrying that cultural burden as she seeks a higher
plane of life? Because you're American, because your successful, because you're
happy on many levels - that doesn't mean you can't carry the scars of your
ancestors. I do, and I know many brothers and sisters that do. Some let it hold
us back, some don't. Some are victims, some are not.
I think it's safe to say that Michelle Obama and her husband are not victims,
nor do they play the role. But again, we don't know her. While this revision of
her public identity may or may not serve the campaign's political purposes,
let's take the opportunity to get familiar with Michelle Obama. Let's use that
knowledge, and wipe clean the stink of racism and sexism that the Right seeks
to spread through our culture solely in the service of Republican victory.
Any impact on America
be damned.
It seems that black folks can't be angry at the predjudices that have and still do occur unless they are comedians or preachers. And preachers can't be angry either if they minister to politicians.
June 18, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And another thing - I witnessed some talk-show host from the Right on Dan Abrams' program tonight getting eviscerated by other guests because he let his real feelings slip out: that this country "gave" Michelle Obama her education and her "do-nothing" job, as the guy called it. One of the other guests was quick to correct him - she EARNED it. I'm an Ivy League grad myself, and I certainly can attest from my experiences and those of other African-American students that someone is always trying to assert that things were "handed" to us. As if we were some intellectual hoodlum, holding a sign that said "Will Study, Write Theses, Take Exams and Get Good Grades for Food". Please.
I've had up to here with folks that want to brand me as one of America's charity cases, and I certainly don't want to see them do it to Michelle Obama on a national scale. But it's happening.
June 19, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, you can't blame 'em, for many it's impossible to conceive of someone getting into a reputable college on anything other than a fat check and a phone call from pops to the dean.
June 19, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out that the affirmative action candidate in this election is none other than Mr. McCain who never would have gotten in to the Naval Academy had his grandfather and father not been high ranking naval officers. He surely did not earn it himself--and he pretty much proved that he deserved to be there less than 893 of his 899classmates.
June 19, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that guy -- Lars Larson -- on Dan Abrams' show tonight. He and other right-wing talkers are trying to characterize Michelle Obama the way the most hateful bigots in our society view successful, outspoken African Americans: as an ungrateful, lazy, angry, affirmative action n----r. Very, very ugly. It made my blood boil.
As more of the public get to see and hear Michelle Obama, they will see how horribly ugly and wrong that characterization of her is.
And the hideousness of this bigotry that drives right-wing talk will be exposed and displayed like never before.
June 19, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you! I was so mad I was screaming on the phone to a friend for a full hour after that.
Who was that asshat?
The other thing I have been thinking about is these people do not see Michelle as a woman. It feels like that to me. As if her race erases her gender. Cindy McCain as a white woman is a woman. Michelle Obama as a black woman is not a woman. That's what I'm hearing through all the noise.
June 19, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that Cricket.
I think they indeed see her as a woman but as a black woman she occupies a uniquely despised place in the race-sex hierarchy. As a black womanshe can be ascribed all of the worst stereotypes of black people and women. As a black woman, she can be degraded as both and that lowly status has been historically promoted and acceptable.
June 19, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo, visions.
That display on Dan Abrams was loathsome. The horror of Lars Larson (and people like him) in their bigotry will come into sharp, horrible focus during this campaign.
I hope these racist attitudes, all too often tolerated or even embraced by the Republican Party, will be revealed in full light for all decent Americans to see.
June 19, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Thanks for being provoking. I like that.
Perhaps the problem is in our mutual understanding of "woman" as a signifier. I'll have to think some more on this. Sorry, cannot get back again today. Massive projects, all due on Monday and all biting at my ankles. I've spent too much time at TPM this week. I'll catch up to you later though.
June 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was for Visions_in_Blue.
June 19, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My word. I simply cannot believe that MSNBC is sexist. Where did we hear that before? Oh yes, from dead-enders supporting the other person who shall remain nameless lest the TPM thought-control herders begin another riot and start stoning Sargent again for mentioning that name.
June 19, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lars Larson = MSNBC?
June 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the way it works. Let's see if he's invited back.
June 19, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Dan Abrams' show? You bet he will. Abrams loves this kind of cheap crap.
I'm surprised he hasn't had Coulter on more often.
June 19, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Bruce. He's baaaaaaack. Lars Larson is on Dan Abrams' sorry little show again.
I knew Abrams would have that asshole on his show again.
The cheapness. Dan LOVES him the cheapness.
June 19, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a conservative shock jock Portland, Oregon.
June 19, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snicker...
June 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, no matter what the topic is, or when it is, in the end its always all about Hillary all the time.
And right. MSNBC as a whole is sexist because they had some right wing asshat spewing racist filth on a show as a guest.
June 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to thank you for writing this. I think (hope?) that willfully ignorant "liberals" who always had an explanation for why I was treated like I was, are finally going to see outright what I was on about. I even hope that they realize that they do it too, on a more subtle level. This is the main reason I quit working on YearlyKos. I figured, I wouldn't deal with that crap at a job that paid me, so why should I when was volunteering my time and money (yes, they own me $$$)?
June 19, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, great post, Scientific. I am also an Ivy League grad (Harvard college and law school) and continue to live with the burden of having to prove myself. I am tired of having to reassure some white people that I know what I am talking about and that I am not an angry, militant black woman. At work they've finally gotten comfortable with my braids. Lord help me if I decide to lock my hair. I am hopeful that more of the people who harbor suspicions about Michelle will find a way to see beyond their prejudices. I've found that getting my skeptical friends to focus on her story makes a difference -- especially, when I tell them that it is similar to my own.
June 19, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, it's a trap. There are people who are going to negatively judge Michelle no matter what she does or says. She faces a hard road and I'm sure she knows it. But, I'm betting that she has more than a little character and toughness and will withstand it. I hope she stays true to herself and just gives America the opportunity to come to know her, understand her, and those who are willing, will develop and appreciation for her.
June 19, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Nicky, I think you just broke the Guinness record for most use of the word "I" in a single paragraph.
Now try for the "me" record!
June 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up.
June 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hope that you lock that hair eventually...thanks for the kind words.
June 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer the Michelle Obama who leans into the microphone implores us to be not afraid to the restrained and dolled up Michele Obama who must defend the fist jab or whatnot.
I always feel a little sad seeing spouses tone down their voice for the sake of the office.
June 19, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry. We haven't seen the last of the bold Michelle Obama.
I love her.
June 19, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like watching Laura Bush transform herself into an empty-headed idiot so as not to outshine her boneheaded husband.
Michelle Obama is gracious, intelligent, assertive and sassy. I think she's an OUTSTANDING role model for little girls and young women especially because she speaks her mind and is usually right. She holds on to and openly discusses her principles.
I was in high school while Clinton was in office, and most of the young women at my school respected Hillary because she proved you could be First Hostess without being a "cookie-baker." She seemed to view her role as an opportunity to do good things within her area of expertise (legal and policy work). Where she lost many of us was in supporting her misogynist husband and subverting her own opinions for those of her husband and the administration. She emerged from those years as a triangulator, putting aside her own opinions to get elected. (And I'm not saying this to bash her campaign now, I'm saying it as a retrospective on her days as First Lady and I'm saying it from my then-18-year-old perspective.)
My hope for Michelle Obama is that she doesn't let her new staff "transform" her too much - I like what she seems to stand for, and I LOVE that she speaks her mind. The right-wingnuts will just have to get used to a strong woman telling them the truth from time to time.
June 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I caught Dan Abrams tonight as well and almost lost my mind after those comments by that horror of a man, radio host, Lars Larson. Here's a link to the exhange.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25253180#25253180
Good for Tanya Ackers pushing back at his statement that Michelle was "given a do-nothing job" by proclaiming clearly that Michelle had "earned it." Of course, Larson dismissed Michelle's work..."outreach and diversity, that's a B.S. job. You know it's a baloney job. It's a do-nothing job."
So not only is Michelle an angry black woman, a terrorist, a bitter, unpatriotic hater, but like her husband, she is lucky to be black.
As a black woman, she was "given" an Ivy League education and "given" a do nothing job dealing with do-nothing issues like outreach and diversity.
You know, I am so enraged by this shit that I can barely type....As a black woman whose work has been outreach and diversity, who graduated from an Ivy League college and is the same age as the Obamas, these attacks against her feel so personal to me.
My road was HARD and the work I did on behalf of others, mostly children and young people was so fucking hard to do in a society that at times is so cruel and inhumane. And fucking assholes like this --a radio talk show host can sit in all his privilege and dismiss this woman's life!!!
Sorry, I should know better then to watch Dan Abrams.
June 19, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As if being an asshole radio host was a "do something" job. He should wash dishes for a living. Now that's doing something.
June 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. I'm an Ivy League grad too. I'm so fucking tired of that.
June 19, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd.
The only problem I'm having with Michelle Obama is that, having heard her speak, it's led to an inability to suppress all sorts of uncharitable, unfavorable comparisons in my mind whenever I tune into the important messages that the current occupants of the White House are trying to get out.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1319126,00.html
He's gonna try harder to sound more serious, OK? In the meantime, if Michelle can help out by sounding less serious, I think that'd be a nice gesture to the First Couple and all profoundly silly people everywhere.
June 19, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Squeamish lot, aren't we?
If I'm scouting a new CEO for a Silicon Valley company, and the candidate's spouse says, "I don't really like California, I really much prefer New England falls", warning bells go off. If it's interviewing for Microsoft and the spouse says, "but Microsoft is so corporate and greedy, I think the open source movement put them in their place", I would similarly wonder whether the candidate shares his/her spouse's views, and whether that's the appropriate person for this important, high-profile position (and whether the spouse will provide some huge embarrassment for the company further down the road).
I'm amazed when you say Michelle comes from a "different culture". Funny, blacks at 4th of July picnics seem to be doing about the same thing as whites, blacks post-9/11 seemed to react the same way as whites, from my generation we were all watching Partridge Family and Room 222 and seeing white and black bodies coming home from Vietnam on TV. In my 6 months living with a black family in a lower middle class black neighborhood with a parade of musicians coming through daily we ate the same kinds of cereal and hamburgers, drank the same kind of beer, watched the same kinds of movies, had the same kinds of mobile phones, told the same kinds of jokes, etc., etc., etc. We have the same conceptions of free speech, the same conceptions of property and MYOB, and a relatively similar world view. I've lived around the world where it took me a year to even get my bearings on a place, much less feel comfortable, but in that half year I don't ever recall feeling like I was in a different culture other than knowing that a clique of black musicians will be a bit different than a group of jocks or white engineers or whatever. I'm sure the reverse situation would be more difficult because of more racial intolerance the other direction, but that doesn't mean a different culture.
You may think this is a question of semantics, but America is a brand and a culture. If you don't support the two, you may be still accepted but you're not going to run it. We may have a lot of improving to do, but we have no ambition to be Japan, Germany or Kenya. We're America, it's the Presidential election, it's big stakes - get used to it. I don't hand the keys to the Porsche to a guy coming in off the street holding a beer and cursing society either. It's basic common sense and self-preservation.
June 19, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be dense, Desi--but what the hell are you talking about? I'm trying to make out what your point is, but I'm not getting it.
Help me out?
June 19, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Project manager business blather.
June 19, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit? It's interesting, but I just can't figure out what his point is. Something about Michelle Obama and the American 'brand.'
Vvvvfffffftt! Right over my head.
June 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Laura, don't play with me. Obama is the candidate of hope and change. His wife wears the Jackie O tops and signifies the black successful-but-still-down-to-earth everywife. It is a brand, it is an image, it is a message. It is packaging. This is how marketing works, and Axelrod has done a great job at bring all the micromarketing niches together, as Penn noted, building a winning coalition out of blacks, youth vote (that they got to the polls) and in-roads into other sectors. So don't blow the marketing, don't screw the image.
June 20, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean to play with you, but you took a very long and rambling way to making a silly statement that looks to me like you're just gulping up and swallowing Republican spin like it's the gospel truth. I didn't see the point of all the rambling (even though it was entertaining to read).
Look, the right wing wants to portray Michelle Obama as a sour, negative figure who is down on America. The extreme right wingers will paint this picture with sharper, uglier, racial tones--Michelle is a radical, liberal, angry Black woman who has the temerity to be ungrateful to our great country and all the opportunities it has offered her.
Pooh. I've heard Michelle speak. Yeah, she talks about what's wrong in this country. But she never fails to point out that her story would never be possible were it not for the opportunities that were available to her in our country.
For anybody with an open mind (not going into it with an anti-Obama bias such as yours) who hears what Michelle says, the right-wing portrait of her just won't make sense. In addition, I think the racial codes the extreme right-wingers load into the message will look surprisingly transparent and exceptionally ugly to a lot of moderate, low-information voters. This strategy will backfire badly.
Tell me: If my predictions are correct, will you be disappointed? Are you hoping the smear efforts gain traction, since they support your personal opinion of the Obamas?
June 20, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her point does not cut through. That's what's wrong with her speeches, that's what's wrong with her marketing.
I watched an hour of her and was disgusted. No good vibes. Nowhere was there, "and then the great things happened..." Grandma got eaten by the wolf, LRRH did too, let's hope the hunter shows up.
She has a great positive story to tell, including service, including hard work, including (moderate) rags-to-riches, including overcoming prejudice. But it needs to be a Cinderella tale - there are no black-or-white Cinderella tales, there are no "Cinderella made it but boy is it tough work being a princess" tales. It's "happily ever after". Look at the Lee Iacocca story (back when it was still evolving, when he was America's hero), look at Ross Perot's story - the have classic lines, classic literature - story setup and introduction, tension, resolution, denouement.
June 20, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of crap. America is way more than a brand and way more than its culture. Brand identity changes, so does culture. Neither or static or defined by what came before, though sometimes they are. That's the thing with branding - it's only static until it stops working. The evidence would suggest that American brand is in some trouble, which is why we are changing it.
That's why the election is "change" and not "experience" this year.
The idea of the American brand changes with just about each generation that takes power. Some generations throw the whole brand out and start over from scratch. Some generations simply tweak the logo a bit and basically carry on as before. But change in branding and culture over time is as inevitable as it is undeniable. This is true for companies as well as countries.
Unless you deny everything and make mountains out of every Obama molehill, then I suppose this is a perfectly reasonable comment. In the meantime, you should go back to analogy school. This one is pretty thin.
June 19, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course brand and culture evolve, but what is Scientific talking about, woman from a "different culture"?
Don't get me wrong - I blogged before that Obama' team should get Michelle on track, so I'm happy they're doing it. You know, it's pretty basic, you're running for president, don't glower into the camera and smile more. You can criticize but maintain some optimism - Reagan's morning in America and all that. Hillary got shut down in '92 for her cookies comment and had to back into the corner for the duration. I watched Michelle go on for an hour about struggle and suffering, a real downer of a speech mired in victimhood, oh her poor student loans, etc, no mention of the opportunity to go to the best schools, to get the best jobs. I'm happy if the Obama team is remaking that no-win message. But here's Scientific going on as if it's about her "not being completely in love with her country". No, it's about her seeming not in love at all with her country at all - you know they're shooting kids in the classrooms and at the bus stops? Michelle could embody the promise of America, that anyone can make it with hard work, that these social and educational programs that conservatives criticize *DO* work, and so on.
Scientific says, "they're asking people of a different culture to capitulate to their norms". My, who would have thought that running for the highest office in the land you'd have to capitulate to someone else's norms. Why, I think jeans and a t-shirt are just fine, and I enjoy my morning beer, and I don't see why my investments in strip clubs (okay, "Adult Lounges"), should bother anyone, and while I occasionally make animal sacrifices to my pagan deities, it's not like I'm infringing on anyone else's rights, am I? And then the lady who interviewed me for the cosmetics sales position asked me to put out my cigarette - what is this, the United Fascist States of America? So maybe my problem was I aimed too low - that despite my convictions for shoplifting and child abuse I really was Presidential material. I think my culture offers me so much in so many ways, makes me a better person for it, and as soon as my 700 Club show is over I'm going to put the hood and fender back on my truck and go find me a campaign manager. I hear Mark Penn might be available. But I'm not going to take no goddamn lip from no one.
June 19, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make excellent points, many of which I agree with.
The problem is that they are lacking in historical context.
However, for the most part I agree Michelle, despite having been ostracized by her white roommate freshman year, should rise above all the hate America's racist society has rained down on her and only address how she has 'overcome' all those obstacles due to the great opportunities this country offers if a black person survives the hate.
You are sooooo right.
Michelle should pattern herself after Laura Bush and keep on steppin...no body wants to know the trouble she has experienced as a black person in America raised on the South side of Chicago who integrated the most prestigious white educational bastions the country has to offer.
Michelle...get thee behind Laura Bush...and make happy.
June 19, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you miss the point. People love stories of struggle that turn out well. There are a million self-help books. It's just that Michelle messes up the "look how far we've come" message. It's not motivational. She embodies the new American dream, everyone's Horatio Alger, if we stop putting all our energy into tax cuts and instead invest it in our people, this is what can happen. It's a great story, she just has to learn to tell it.
June 20, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, still with that stupid photo, eh?
A CHANGE election. Guess you're too busy posing before the cameras to have noticed, but Uncle O has already:
Stabbed the great Reverend Wright in the back.
Left his church of 20 years.
Went down to FLA spewing shit about Castro and basically sounding like Ronald Reagan.
Backed off on his "negotiate with Iran" position. (As if this country has anything to teach Iran, a country which hasn't attacked or invaded another country since the 16th Century.)
Took it up the bum from AIPAC.
Wagged his stern finger at all those dead-beat darkie dads.
Filled his Foreign Policy "Advising" Team with a bunch of the Undead, the same people who gave us the Iraq Sanctions, the Sudan bombing, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and similar happy events.
Announced that NAFTA is A-OK with him.
And pushed his great wife to convince people that she's basically just another Condi Rice.
And my God, we're only in mid-June!
Maybe he'll be giving his convention speech in Denver wearing white gloves and a big bow-tie.
June 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time does not heal all wounds. Sometimes, in a life-threatening situation, the doctor opts to speed the healing by inducing a fever.
Before entering the race, the Obamas knew his candidacy would necessarily be a form of shock therapy for the American psyche.
But what else could they do?
You're black, you want to be president? You've got to persuade people to elect a black president.
First lady? Ditto.
The amazing thing to me is that this couple has taken on the herculean task of sweeping aside decades (in fact, centuries) of racial prejudice as an INCIDENTAL aspect of their drive to the White House.
Think about it: That isn't even the core of their message of change.
It's just a salutary side-effect.
What I'm saying, Scientific, is don't feel bad about the crap either of them has had to put up with, or will have to put up with.
They weighed the cost, and decided it was one they were willing to pay.
That alone shows amazing strength and courage.
And voters are beginning to sense that, and respond to that.
The first couple will be just fine, and they will better America in the process.
June 19, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love this comment. Very astute observation.
June 19, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just joined TPM, I usually just come in to read the posts and articles.
I had to comment because i was flipping through the channels when i caught the exchange. My heart broke because there were 3 males including Dan Abrams [an atty] who could have silent that language right away. I don’t know why I am so emotional but I think its venom and hate. I actually cried. Where is the feminist outrage?
June 19, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge has splashed this link ...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/cindy-mccain-pr.html
... as "Cindy Unleashed"
My guess is that Cindy's Thursday GMA appearance is gettin' set to get panned - big time - for her critical comments on the show re Michelle.
June 19, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific, I love your posts. I was livid when I watched Abrahms tonight and that odious Lars person started going on about Michelle's "make-work" job. How dare he, and the right-wingers denegrate such an accomplished woman who has earned evry GDthing that she has in her life. How f**king dare they?!!!
The longer I thought about it though, the less pissed I got. I'm a Harvard legacy, I didn't attend because of finances, but I got accepted because a relative was an alumn. Neither of the Obama's had my "in" into that world, they both earned their way. Sure they got scholarships, but they also had to take out massive student loans to pay their own way.
George W Bush was given every chance in this world because he was the son or grandson of powerful people who were also alumns. He never earned his way into anything, except his fight as a spermatozoa breaching an egg. See Andover and Yale.
John McCain went to the best schools. Private HS and then on to Annapolis, one of the most elite schools in the nation. All because his father and grandfather were alumns and Admirals. As he performed at the lowest of his college class, he was still accepted into the most prestigious branch of his service, not because he was worthy, but because his forefathers were worthy.
Cindy's father built a business and became very wealthy and bequeathed to her his empire. I'm not doubting for a second she's very good at her job, because she probably is. But she didn't earn it through her own merits, hard work or innovative ideas. She got where she is because she inherited it.
The undeserved/ minority opportunity equalization charge, the Obama's can fight. Neither of them came from money or name or history to give them a legacy "in" into that world. And they can shatter that particular "crystal ceiling", the one where the wealthy take care of their own. Michelle and Barack both broke that ceiling in very individual ways. (And if they didn't break them, themselves, they sure threaded that needle, especially Barack and the Harvard Law Review.
Anyway, I can see Obama fighting the earned/unearned and given stations in life argument and how that 95% of the population can and will relate. But the "lazy black negress" meme that the Lars "person" was trying to establish last night on Abrahms show is something more pernicious.
The only thing they(Republicans) have that might pull in the votes is affirmative action and reverse racism. And that is all. It's going to get much,much uglier between now and Nov 4.
Anyway, Scientific, please keep up with the provacative posts. I appreciate them.
Dee
June 19, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"[l]et's take the opportunity to get familiar with Michelle Obama".
Let's do. I think folks around here can appreciate Michelle Obama, her accomplishments, where's she has come from, and her potential to be a real role model and partner as first lady. She is undoubtedly one of the most accomplished women ever to be a potential occupant of that position. America should be proud of Michelle Obama, and this crotchety cynic can only hope that his daughters grow up to be like her.
It is so easy to blame the racist across the street. But don't lose sight that outside of the TPM halls of groove, Michelle, principally because of the sexism that is all a figment of the imagination of Hillary Clinton's deadend supporters, is now being made over by blockheads, smart campaign handlers but still blockheads in a long-term cosmic sense, who will strip her of all of the traits that folks like us are proud of, divorce her from her rightful place as an independent and accomplished woman, and she will become the very nice wife of the Democratic nominee, and soon we shall know her cookie recipes (if we don't already know them).
Again, people, meet that new boss. . .no different than that old boss, but through no fault of his own. Change is, more and more, just a word, and again it's nobody's fault. But don't just blame Boobus Americanus and their petty-ass stereotypes, because our candidate and our party are playing right along with the way things are, and our champions right now are doing nothing but helping to perpetuate the stereotypes we've learned to detest.
P.S. Duck! Two women with headscarves are trying to be visible at an Obama campaign rally. Hide them, quick! [cuz the refs are cowering and you won't read about it here, but it fits right into the point I'm making about Michelle--we are sooooo progressive, but we have no problems with the fact that our change candidate is being forced to live with the kinds of decisions that every other candidate has had to live with, even decisions that are blatantly filthy and discriminatory and a bow to hate]
It is going to be a long campaign.
June 19, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fair point about the two women that the campaign allegedly sought to hide from view. Who made that decision and why is something I'd be interested to hear more about. Perhaps my view of the country is too sunny, but I think it takes an overly-dim view of the country to think that we need to go there in order to protect our candidate. Unnecessary, if the story's true.
June 19, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know chino, I can be very cynical, particularly when as now I'm still smarting from the primaries, but I think you and I agree that we can still support Senator Obama without question (well that would be going too far for me lol but there is zero chance that I will not vote for him), and still feel a responsibility to condemn the Obama campaign for what happened in Detroit so that something like that doesn't happen again. Anything less is hypocrisy 101.
June 19, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just for that, you get an invite to weigh in over at ...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/regina-thomas.php
At first glance, it might look like an inconsequential post, but for those who understand the terrain, well, you're invited to hold forth ...
Anyway, I hear ya'. Any of us who ever got our engines revved by Don't Stop (Thinkin' about Tomorrow) ... we hear ya'.
And that's comin' from someone who's been a Michelle Obama fan since the Be Not Afraid clip linked to up top ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q ) ...
Yeah, I'm not afraid. And none of us need be afraid to call bullshit.
June 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm flattered for the invite chino. I will have to check it for sure, but it's gonna have to be later on. Thanks.
June 19, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see that Obama's taught us all some new tricks. The ol' Jay-Z brush off. Got it. Whatever. We're cool, but your Karma's another story. Just sayin'.
June 19, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. No brush-off. I read it and it's a great post and raises a critical issue which I definitely want to address. Just need some real downtime to do it justice. :)
June 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course - they poll every day of the week and they want her to fit the mold - and she will. They'll poll to find out what her "project" will be as first lady and no doubt it will be children's health. They will do exactly what they always do because that's the way they do it.
June 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. I talked about the Muslim women in Detroit here.
June 19, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for keepin' it real.
June 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, I'm sellin' my soul for Obama at $10 a pop over at this thread:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/regina-thomas.php
June 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to see argument among progressives about Michelle Obama. I think the real differences we have (unless some of you out there are still harboring racist/sexist attitudes you haven't identified and owned up to) depend on the amount of political experience we've had.
We're all like walking wounded--we just vary by degree and number and depth of wounds and scars. Bruce, I can see you've been around for a long time! Your scars appear to be pretty deep. I sympathize, buddy.
Let's face it: the right-wing and MSM and their ability to reduce fascinating individuals (like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama) into two-dimensional cartoons scares us. Removing depth and dimension from individuals always results in something ridiculous and unflattering, doesn't it? For women, like potential First Ladies, it seems like the MSM and right-wing go easier on the ones who do the reduction to themselves--Cindy McCain has never presented herself as anything but the "acceptable" two-dimensional woman. Hillary was punished because she refused to do this. I understand why so many older women see her as a hero. She allowed her individuality to be on display and she spoke for herself. So did Eleanor Roosevelt. But they were punished for it. And now they'll try to punish Michelle, too.
I hate this. One consolation I take is that I believe Americans are growing tired of this kind of crap. I think there's an awakening growing out there to the danger of the pettiness of this kind of preoccupation in the MSM--folks know that things have gotten seriously fucked up in the last few years. Obsessing on this kind of crap might have been entertaining to them in the past, but how seriously are they going to treat it now?
I may be wrong, but God help me, I hope I'm not: I feel a sea chanage happening in public attitudes out there. I think Sean Hannity and Lars Larson and Rush Limbaugh and all of those trivializers and haters are going to be marginalized over the next few years.
June 19, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev...This was supposed to be a response to bslev...
June 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the money Laura. I do appreciate the audacity of hoping for a better tomorrow.
June 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Laura. I think of Mary Lincoln and her critics - when she cancelled societal duties when her son was ill she was accused of wounding diplomacy in D.C. When she didn't cancel them when her son was ill, she was accused of being a social gadfly without concern for her son.
June 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've all seen the comparisons already between Lincoln and Obama (e.g., Senators from Illinois), but this is the first comparison I've seen between Mary Lincoln and Michelle Obama. It seems appropriate. :)
(OK, I know it's not really a comparison.)
June 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I had hoped the comparison would be the nature of criticism that is inflicted (and I do mean inflicted) upon both these women. I didn't make that clear.
June 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you made it clear. I just liked that Michelle was kinda sorta being compared to Mary Lincoln because of its poetic nature.
June 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the core of what Scientific is saying though: Norms are different depending on who you speak to and where you come from. There is no American "norm" when it comes to this stuff. We are a patchwork quilt of norms. For me, I don't find it to be the "norm" to speak to me like a child and candy-coat truth. Some Americans may want that, but the majority in my life want the truth.
Do people in your circle prefer pander to passion? Somehow I doubt it.
How is using hyperbole supposed to somehow illustrate norms. Isn't that an oxymoron? Norms would be more normal, not less. Having an educated woman speak to what ills our country in smart, non-compromising language is a breath of fresh air. It is a welcome change to the American norm, because our current status quo is killing us.
You know what? I'm not in love with my country. I can't even say I have a case of the likes for my country these days. We are a fascist, imperialistic juggernaut that instructs the world to do as we say and not as we do. What is there to be proud of in that?
We are a country where you need to exceptional in order to have a decent life and hope for your kids. That's nothing to be proud of either. We leave 80-percent of our fellow Americans struggling to survive and then somehow pretend we are the Beacon of Light & Justice for the World. Now that is a fairytale. The opportunity to go to great schools and get an education exists for the wealthy and for those willing to take on massive debt with the hope they can pay it off later. Wonderful for you to notice our awesome system of higher education.
Because I came from a working class family and the GI Bill wasn't nearly enough for a quality education, I went to school on loans. As did my wife for similar reasons. We have about $80K in student loans combined and she is going back to school to become a nurse. Luckily there are some great scholarships and grants for that particular profession. It is also lucky that I am in a profession that pays more than the "norm" for most Americans. We'll dig our way out eventually.
Someone who wants to be a school teacher or a community organizer or work for a non-profit? Good luck paying off those loans.
"My country right or wrong" is the exact thing that is wrong with America. I am glad more people are willing to hear uncomfortable truths this year than need to be lied to with pretty platitudes.
Now, if you are saying that many Americans still need to their change fed to them in small, bite-sized chunks that are focus-tested and mother approved, I don't disagree. There are still many that need to truth to be more seductive than I would like. That's why I am not running for office. Incidentally, that's probably why Michelle isn't running for office either.
June 19, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was in reply to Desidero above.
June 19, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, people seem very good at applying their own situations to the Obamas. The big reason the Obamas had trouble paying back their student loans is they bought a condo in 1993 and even with 40% down ($110K) and >$200K/year income it made more sense to pay off mortgage than low-interest student loans. Is that the situation you're in? In 2000 Barack ran for Congress and put about $20K on his credit cards, which again made it more reasonable to pay off 20% credit card bills than student loans. Now I don't know how much the Obamas owed in student loans, but averaging about $250K/year from 1998 on I would guess that some belt tightening could have paid these off quickly. But if the loans were 7-8% or so, there just isn't a lot of incentive to pay them off early, even with $2 million income over 8 years. Is that the same situation you find yourself in?
Michelle worked for a law firm just out of law school and then went to work for Mayor Daley's office - not exactly slumming it, nor were her director jobs with University of Chicago and elsewhere. Though granted she could have made more elsewhere, her $100K+ pay is not quite the same as working for the Peace Corps or a Fulbright at $30K/year. Bill Clinton was only pulling down $200K/year at the same time as President with million dollar defense fees, fancy that. Wonder what the Clintons could have made if he weren't in public service - oh wait, we now know.
"My country right or wrong" is not the same thing as "My country never right (or first time right)" is not the same thing as "My country sometimes right, sometimes wrong". #2 gets awfully tiresome and frequently isn't a winning campaign slogan especially for national office.
I'm not typically a flag waver, but for example when too many Europeans were kicking America in the runup to Iraq, I patiently explained to them that the European attitude of just pretending nothing was wrong and leaving regional problems unsolved waiting to blow up was not the pro-active foreign policy needed at that time, and after watching European nations punt on the break-up of Yugoslavia for the longest time, we wouldn't be expecting them to get past their "Not My Problem" attitude anytime soon. Our response in Bosnia and Kosovo was arguably far from the best, but at least we did something. Similarly, I continually state that our war on drugs is abhorrent policy, but our war on black poverty and crime was a very good thing. I keep hearing people be upset about welfare cuts, but no one can really tell me what huge harm was done, while it seemed to have had some very beneficial results. Especially as of the year 2000, black opportunity and black wealth in America was the best it's ever been. This isn't pre-history, this is very recent times. So why only doom and gloom? (And even Barack is advocating putting more police on the streets - is that going to increase the incarceration rate, and which demographics will that hit hardest? Will he be criticized?)
June 19, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This deserves an actual blog as a reply, since the commenting application won't let me use multiple links. Suffice it to say, I believe you take a very Pollyanna view of American history from the last 40 years, which is odd coming from a cynic.
June 19, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This comment needs an actual blog in reply since the TPM software doesn't allow for multiple links. Suffice it to say, I think you are taking a very Pollyanna view of American history from the last 40 years.
I also believe Barack understands that more cops on the street isn't going to solve anything, but it is necessary for folks like yourself who see the issue in that fashion. When fear is the presiding tone for a discussion then the "solutions" will be anything but that.
Also, when corporate America gets involved in anything, you can bet the result will be less just in the interests of more profits. The military is just one example that the prisons are now following.
Our country hasn't gotten anything right in an awfully long time. Certainly nothing in my lifetime can be pointed to as leadership that successfully plots a course toward a more just and sustainable future. That is my definition of a country to be proud of. What is your definition?
Our "war on poverty and crime" was a good thing? Really? Based on what statistics? The War on Drugs feeds the crime that you cite as being successfully managed! The War on Poverty drove many women on to the streets as their only means of making a living or to drugs as their only way of drowning out a hopeless life. We made them dependent on the system and then simply pulled the rug out from under them rather than fully preparing them to fend for themselves. The War on Drugs and Poverty and Crime are all symptoms of the same failed policies.
June 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
By 2000 violent crime on blacks went down to about 1/3 of what it was in 1992. That's not just talking about drugs. The situation on the streets, especially black streets, was none too pretty back then.
Is that pollyannish?
Black poverty went from 32% in 1993 to 21% in 2000.
Is that pollyannish?
June 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not saying it didn't go down, but that isn't the point of any of this and at what cost to other areas did we suffer for that 10 percent? Are you in the broken eggs to get an omelet crowd?
June 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the "sometimes when you face a depressingly intractable problem you have to simply do something and then deal with any resulting mess" crowd.
June 19, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but you state the War on Drugs, Crime and Poverty as a black problem. Those policies are damaging to people of all colors, as common sense would dictate since laws apply to everyone. That black opportunity and black wealth have increased isn't saying much given where they started 40 years ago and considering the percentages of that community who were and are behind.
Opportunity in this country for people of any color has never been further out of reach for the vast majority in this country.
The only thing the War on Drugs, Poverty & Crime does is feed an injustice system with fresh meat for our increasingly bloated Prison Industrial Complex. That makes a nice matching set for our Military Industrial Complex. Of course, if you somehow think our policy decision aren't shaped by the influence of those two behemoths, then I guess we may as well agree to disagree right now.
There are a few facts about the last forty years in America, which I had the distinct displeasure of living through just about every moment. Just look at the time-line that started in 1968 and chart out the world of shit this country has become. Sure, some things have gotten better as the younger generations learned a more inclusive style of living with each other. Racism and other systemic ills still exist, but much individual prejudice about race and gender and sexual orientation has been mitigated by generational shift.
Other than minor social justice successes that were mostly a given based on the whole generational thing, the rest of our history for at least 40 years has been seriously fucked up under both of the previous two generations.
Our politics, our government our country,/i> has failed us, no matter how well you may be doing individually or whether you wish to see it. Worse yet, we have failed ourselves by allowing it to happen, over and over and over again for decades on end. In every single measure, we have gone backward since the post World War II boom that ended in the late 60s.
Perhaps we can fix things this year or at least plot a new course and get started. It is a big task since there really is very little that shouldn't be done differently. The paradigm shift that needs to happen in government is almost too large to actually happen, but I believe new leadership at the top can certainly help get the ball rolling.
June 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I guess Michelle is your candidate after all. Funny, I thought the Internet brought access to information for most of the population (not that everything is to be found on-line), and that there were significant increases of computer ownership from various initiatives, especially under Clinton.
While home ownership has turned into a double-edge sword with the housing bust, this bubble was obvious and there could have been better initiatives to decrease the damage as it burst. But home ownership in the US reached 1980 levels (66%) under Clinton, despite the huge increase in single-parent (i.e. single income with daycare costs) households. Quite frequently this home ownership improves quality of life and household wealth.
June 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Repeal Glass-Steagall and all kinds of things are possible. The housing bubble that is bursting right now began under Clinton. Once again, you point to a couple of carrots and deny that the stick ever happened. Perhaps you should check into that internet a little more yourself for something other than confirming your own opinions.
June 19, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, "carrot and stick" refers to the stick that's holding the carrot in front of the donkey's nose, not a stick to beat him with.
Second, you can try to puff up your worries into bad things that supposedly happen, but primarily the only bad thing that happened was the heavy increase in incarceration of blacks - the other results were quite beneficial. 8 years later you can blame Clinton for everything that happened since, just like you can blame Clinton for 9/11 eight months after he left office. The housing finance issue is one area you can heap some blame, but allowing heavy home ownership in the 90's makes it worth doing some lower income bailouts 8 years later - the net benefit is well worth it.
June 19, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't fight crime by treating everyone like a criminal. Crime went down in the 1990s because opportunity was beginning to be wider spread. Clinton was a beneficiary of the technological revolution not some genius of crime fighting.
We are spending more money than ever fighting "crime" yet crime is up all over the country. We been fighting a War on Drugs for more than 70 years, yet drug use has never been higher.
Crime and equality are directly linked. Busting heads and locking up all the black guys won't do a thing to solve it. Apparently makes some people feel less afraid though.
June 19, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It stopped a lot of people, including black people, from getting murdered. Gloss over that if you want, but it's a basic quality of life feature - I can step out my door with much less worry about getting my ass shot. It don't get much more basic than that.
June 20, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can hope that the new leadership can change things. I hope that the internal inertia of the status quo will not generate a bigger mess. I hope.
Desi, Jason did a blogpost on the growing prison industry. It never made it into the charts. I might have been the only person who read it, I don't know.
June 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know very well about outsourcing and growing prisons, and it's the hugest black spot on progress in the 90's, especially considering the number of marijuana incarcerations and feeble 3 strike incarcerations.
At the same time, crime was way out of hand in 1993, and with Obama promoting more policeman, it's hard to see where he'll do anything differently. Also, if you recall how much grief Clinton got for midnight basketball, even though the program was effective and non-destructive (though in 2006 a Republican could get $3 million for teaching poor kids golf - how about them priorities - now if ghetto kids could just afford club and green fees...).
June 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If "norms" were all different they wouldn't be norms, Jason.
June 19, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the point. There is no such thing as norms, so to cite them as a reason for doing anything is intellectually dishonest, at best, and down-right idiotic at worst.
June 19, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Society cannot function without agreed upon "norms". There may be ranges within norms, but there are normative behaviors that have developed in our evolution as a species.
June 19, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in a purely mathematical sense, you can have a multinormal distribution (AKA multivariate normal distribution). Just sayin'…
June 19, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the key word there being multi variable, not multi norm. Of course there is a range in norms, geesh.
June 19, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so perhaps a better example is the multimodal distribution, of which a bimodal distribution is a special case.
June 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bimodal (or multimodal) distributions are often seen in grade distributions, where you might have two or more "cultures" (e.g., geeks vs. frat boys/sorority girls) in the classroom.
June 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have two types of cultures in a classroom - you have a classroom with cultural variations within a hierarchy based on social preference. Within those variations you still have norms of behavior which are acceptable to society and behaviors that are abnormal and not acceptable to society.
June 19, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, it's both multivariate and multimodal. There are some shared norms, but there are also markedly different norms between, for example, the geek culture that I belong to and the sports culture that I don't belong to. (That there are members in both cultures here necessarily leads to some mixing.)
Things that are quite acceptable in geek culture (e.g., long debates about your favorite Star Trek captain) are usually looked down upon in the sports culture. Similarly, in certain subcultures (in more ways than one) of sports fans you'll find behavior (e.g., racism and/or sexism) that is unacceptable in geek culture. (OK, I might be a bit biased here.)
I don't agree with all of Jason's points, but it's definitely possible for a larger culture to have smaller cultures, each with its own norms. Of course, one can also average out these norms to get a norm for the larger culture, but when you look at the actual distribution of behaviors and attitudes, I'd argue that you'll find something closer to a multimodal distribution than to a regular Gaussian distribution (i.e., one with a single mode/norm).
June 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are not different social norms in either society, Ben. There may be different behaviors that are acceptable in your group, but groups within societies are not of themselves societies or cultures.
June 19, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you draw the dividing line between cultures, then? Does the US have its own culture with its own norms, or is it merely a subculture of Western Society? Maybe a subculture of a US/Canadian culture? Is "Western Society" merely a subculture of a "First World Society" (that might include South Korea and Japan, for example), or even a subculture of a global society that would include China and India?
Unless you're going to claim that the boundary is the troposphere and that our culture is distinct from those in Alpha Centauri, I don't see how one can draw a clear line of separation.
Once you admit there is no clear line of separation, I don't see how one can fail to admit the existence and significance of norms in subcultures. (I will, however, admit that my geek vs. sports subcultures might not count as proper subcultures.)
June 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my definition of culture is a group with a mutually recognized set of symbols used to transmit to following generations knowledge, acceptable behavior within and by the group and technology to solve recurrent problems through standardized orientation to problem solving.
So yes, while there are variations in cultures such as different groups and subgroups, there are various cultures which use different sets of symbols to solve recurrent human problems. While cultures may have symbols in common their means of transmitting those symbols are different. American culture is different from Chinese culture because the symbols and means of transmission of those symbols are different. Blacks and whites in the U.S. are groups within the same culture - both groups use the same set of symbols to transmit etc.
June 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, are Latinos a different culture then?
Are Canadians the same culture?
Are the British?
What about in India where English is most frequently used between peoples who don't speak the same Indian tongue? Or, are each of those their own culture?
June 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because cultures have commonalities it doesn't mean they are then the same. Humans are a different species although we have commonalities with other species. I think you're confusing civilization with culture.
June 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, my opinion is in the opposite direction. I was just trying to figure out where you draw the lines. (It wasn't meant as a belittling or putting-words-in-your-mouth exercise, although I recognize it could've seemed that way. Rather, I was trying to extend your definitions to see where their limits were.) I don't think cultures are clearly defined entities with clearly defined mores and norms, but rather amorphous, somewhat ambiguous abstractions thus allowing for the concept of subcultures with their own norms.
It's hard to convey this in a forum, but I'm not trying to come off as a know-it-all (I'm told I do that sometimes), as I'm rather quite amateurish when it comes to sociology and anthropology, but I do have my opinions about what is and isn't a culture as well as whether it's possible for a "single" culture to have multiple norms as contained within its various subcultures. I say this not because you're coming off as being angry, but because this is about the time that people sometimes get angry with me. :)
Also, it's great that we're still making this thread narrower and narrower. That's another habit of mine. :)
June 19, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific: take for what this is worth, which you may find is nothing, but here goes. I get Michelle. I love her fire & style. I share your frustration; but I'm not African American or any variety of black (though I have my own ancestral baggage). The proud comment really got me. Not because I was indignant, but because she took the words right out of my mind. She is my kind of person. I appreciate directness and don't shy from it.
Now what I find really interesting are the comments early in the thread, talking about Lars Larson. Lars, last I knew was a newscaster from Portland, OR. Funny part is I know him, or should say that we had cause for business aquaintance. And this is the reason I post, it is not like the person I knew, if he took a hard line against Michelle. Makes me wonder how much is an act, you know, I suspect it is for show. It does not match my experience of him, while I admit to limited contact. This is not an excuse, I just find it curious.
I just wanted to share that many love Michelle who are not of her heritage and perhaps a few just act like they don't, because she is sooo coool, you have to admit. I will stand up for her even while some politically nit-pick because I don't find cause to fear truth. After these long years truth has become radical to some.
June 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said something like this on another site:
This election cycle has been quite an education for me.
I know Michelle(s). I live in a city full of Michelles, I teach Michelles-in-the-making, I have Michelle relatives, and was raised by the 1950s versions of Michelle.
What is becoming clear to me in all of this is that Michelle Obama is not being introduced as an "individual," but as a "category of persons" that evidently a portion of this country did not know existed (AA woman/bright/highly-educated/politically-aware/professional/straddles all kinds of identity-lines etc., etc).
Oh my...
June 19, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what identity politics does. That's why I have hated politics for as long as I can remember.
Reducing individuals to their types so they can be efficiently labeled and vilified--the right-wing noise machine has turned this into an art form. Take notice when you hear a right-winger talk about politics or American society. You will hear them quickly frame their thoughts around the types involved, and the qualities they automatically associate with their pre-conceived types. This allows for some mighty fantasy constructs.
Whole books have been written by right-wingers (Ann Coulter), based soley on their concept of types. How many books have been written "about" Hillary Clinton, based solely on right-wing views about "types," and full of their fantasies about what her type thinks/feels and what they believe motivates her?
Makes me want to vomit.
June 19, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very perspicacious post! I completely agree.
June 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang. I had to look up perspicacious. Honest.
:-D
June 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain and his drug addled tramp are toast.
June 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not helping.
June 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are a few facts about our so-called war on Poverty,
June 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drugs
June 19, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
& Crime.
June 19, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of pulling up a sky-is-falling article from 1994, look at the US Bureau of Statistics figures on the decrease in homicides from 1993 through 2000. Very impressive.
June 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noted that I'm against the excessive and abusive approach of the war on drugs numerous times.
At the same time, somebody has to offer a policy that decreases the criminal aspects of drugs on the street - both in terms of violence and corruption. No policy at all is not a workable strategy.
June 19, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The policy is called decriminalizing drugs and addressing abuse, provide comprehensive education from cradle to the grave, provide true national health care.
The money we waste on the War on Drugs could pay for all of those programs and more. Widespread opportunity is a more effective way to fight crime than locking everyone up and treating the rest like criminals. People without hope are dangerous and have nothing to lose. People with a future are less likely to jeopardize it for momentary gain or glory. I would think a true progressive would agree.
Your "solutions" to crime made other areas of our society way worse. Creating yet another unaccountable system of corporate and institutional corruption is hardly the way to address these sort of social ills.
June 19, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can find someone to push decriminalization through Congress, fine, go for it. Of course having drugged out neighborhoods is not an acceptable result - there will have to be serious ways of dealing with substance abuse as part of any decriminalization program.
But your articles cited are not good evidence of the negative effects. The biggest negative effects in my book are simply the people who aren't harming anyone, including not even harming themselves, locked away in a hysterical reaction. But I don't see the decrease in violent crime and decrease in poverty and improved living conditions as bad side effects. But there's no way Clinton or anyone else was going to get decriminalization in the 90's, and even the versions of health care we thought were good back then had structural problems. The education issue is twisted because the drugs and violence prevented kids from getting educated even when they went to school, no matter how much money you might throw at the problem. Drugs and violence were big problems in the early 90's.
June 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Implying that decriminalization leads to drugged out neighborhoods is not in keeping with the facts. Drugs were legal for far longer than they were illegal. In fact, it is our backward and foolish War on Drugs that keeps the insanity going worldwide. We started this crap to serve the interests of Dupont and Standard Oil.
Prior to the War on Drugs, it was a global commercial enterprise and used in much the same way as alcohol is today.
I am not talking about Clinton being able to take that challenge on, but he could have been more humane and lessened sentences with more emphasis on treatment, like a democrat. Instead, he put "400,000" cops on the street, escalated the War and ripped apart our inner cities. While at the same time, he kicked millions off the welfare roles without a serious plan for helping them become self sufficient.
It is amazing to me the things that you choose to forget when arguing your points. I am quite hopeful that sometime soon, certainly in my lifetime, that common sense will prevail in this and many other areas in America.
June 19, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above discussion made me look up the crime topic on Senator Obama's Senate website.
I was surprised to see he is most proud of co-sponsoring the Combat Meth act, mentioning that meth is "ravaging commmunities" in Illinois in the first paragraph.
Now to me, this act was like the antithesis of the principle of decriminalizing drugs, as I was personally effected in personal freedom, and I followed it in the news when it was enacted. Among other things, this act took the Drixoral cold pills I prefer for my allergies, which are a time-release mixture of an antihistamine and the decongestant pseudophedrine, off the shelves of all the drug stores in the country and put it behind the pharmacist's counter, where you have to show a photo I.D. and sign for it to buy it. The reasoning was supposedly one theoretically could possibly buy a ton of it from drugstores and melt it down and separate the pseudophedrine out to make meth. So now all of us that purchased over-the-counter meds with pseudophedrine in them have to ask for it at the pharmacist's counter and sign that we bought it, and be on a list that law enforcement can peruse. The result will eventually be that the companies will stop putting the pseudoephedrine in it, because they're not selling much of it, and I think that was the basic intent. Previously, of course, the feds took away the ability of vitamin stores to sell natural ephedrine, for the same reason, it's also used to make meth. So all of us who use it for other reasons have to suffer because of the meth addicts.
It's interesting that the next thing on that page is
Senator Obama has been a strong supporter of efforts to increase funding and support for local law enforcement. He supported the reauthorization of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program in the 109th Congress and supports efforts to increase COPS funding.
COPS is the Clinton administration program that Bill Clinton liked to brag about in many of his speeches, usually by saying something along the lines of "we put more police on the streets." I happen to think this program is a good one, and that it's a popular one. And Obama clearly really wants it out there that he strongly supports it.
June 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has to offer solutions within the existing framework. That doesn't mean the framework is right. He doesn't think, however, increased policing is an excuse for doing nothing on other fronts. Nor does it mean that meth and marijuana are the same thing. Marijuana arrests still account for the vast majority of drug "crimes" in this country.
June 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're going to psychoanalyze his written policy positions to tell us they're really the opposite, just wait and see once he gets elected?
Typically politicians have less room for freedom once they're elected, not more. Additionally, count the handful of Democrats in Congress who pushed hard for stricter CAFE standards, and that will give you an idea how easy a pie-in-the-sky liberal dream like decriminalization will pass. I remember Jimmy Carter talking about it in 1976. I remember people thinking that because Clinton had smoked dope that decriminalization was just around the corner. Hey, Barry did coke - are we going to see those laws loosened? Not a chance - we're more likely to see them toughened just to show he's tough on drugs and lower criticism. That's the way it works.
June 20, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even Clinton regrets the incarceration part and wishes he could pull some of it back. What exactly do you want me to say?
June 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to the Chinese, I doubt they look at it as an historical, global enterprise.
June 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Jason, I think that while your essays are generally well written, your reasoning falls apart is your seeming reluctance to accept complexity and ambiguity in arguments about public policies.
What makes public policies fail so often is this either/or, good/bad simplicity of argumentation. There are too many variables in implementing public policy that preclude this kind of reasoning. The war on crime is a good example of this - because you see bad results, you completely discard any good results from what has been a many faceted, many pronged address on crime. You cannot arrive at truth if you discard the argument that might prove your claim is wrong.
Frankly, I think that you're a good writer, but I think you would be a better writer if you took less time in proving your point and more time in proving you have a point. I don't tell you this to discourage you, but to encourage you. One book that I find helpful and often recommend to my students is "Explaining Hitler" by Ron Rosenbaum - not for the subject matter, but because it opens your mind to how arguments are formulated and explained and lead to informed opinion and truth.
June 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are saying that my opinions fall apart because you excuse all the ills we create in the name of some ill-defined "good" while "fighting" crime.
I disagree with that entire framing. I don't think we have done anything right in more than 40 years. We have been bringing the hammer down for much longer than I have been alive. To pretend that doesn't have grave social consequences is to present a lack of context even more profound than the one you accuse me of.
There is not a single thing that we currently do that isn't in need of massive re-engineering. If we choose to not do it now, our children and grandchildren will pay for our cowardice later.
In fact, are paying for it now.
June 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not what I am saying at all, just forget it.
June 19, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on, Jason. This is a real, constructive tip from Bev, distinct from this particular argument.
I'll bet you would do well to listen to her and follow up on her advice.
If you reject it simply out of your momentary defensiveness, you're probably going to miss something valuable.
June 19, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not being defensive. She is saying that while well-written, my arguments lack merit because they don't take into account the complexity of the issues we face.
That is the first logical fallacy in her critique because the entire basis of my argument is that the solutions to our problems are actually quite simple. They start with not compromising our basic values in the pursuit of some sort of ephemeral notion of security. The argument is that our entire frame of reference is skewed. We have been turned upon one another by the notion that all the crime is in black neighborhoods and a crack-down is the only way to keep us safe. Of course forgetting that those "meth heads" are mostly white. The that biggest consumer of of illegal drugs are white people.
Here second logical fallacy is that I agree that what we did to lower crime a whole ten percent actually made a whole host of other problems much, much worse. Beyond the sociological and societal damage wrought on certain communities, we wasted billions of dollars that would be better spent elsewhere.
I am not sure how else I can argue that America has been drinking its own Koolaid for way too long and it is far past time we quit telling ourselves these made-up stories like it's all Bush's fault or the republicans did it or everything was perfect in the 90s.
Our country has been disintegrating under both parties for at least 40 years. We don't have a republican problem. We have an incumbent problem. We have a citizen involvement problem. We have structural deficiencies in this country that will break us apart if we don't address them with truth and candor.
I am tired of the collateral damage mentality we have in this country, but I guess that somehow I need to find a more polite way to put things, so I don't hurt anyone's feelings. I need to be more gentle with my anger over veterans living on the streets and 18-year-olds dying in Sadr City. I should close my eyes a little harder to the rampant injustice of our legal system. I should simply ignore the fact that both political parties have presided over the biggest transfer of wealth in this nation's history.
You're right, perhaps I missed the point.
June 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think she said your arguments lack merit. You make excellent points and your heart's obviously in the right place. :-)
She's just giving you genuine advice to look at a good example of how to analyze and treat a deeply complex subject.
I'm not as intelligent as you or Bev, but I think I'm going to try to plow through that book anyway, just to see if I can grasp what she's talking about.
June 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this book because it is such a splendid example of the historical method applied to journalism. It makes them aware of the fact that not all information is good information, that we make judgements about information which are not always based on truth because we either don't have the right information or we stop seeking information.
You're right, I am not telling Jason that his arguments are meritless, I am telling Jason that his arguments are facile, narrowly interpreted to support his claim and lack logical extension by which he can test them.
June 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, I can't help being fascinated that a book called Explaining Hitler is useful in helping us understand arguments and how to cultivate informed opinions on complex subjects.
Oh! And I finally picked up that you're a professor/teacher/educator. (You referred to "my students.") So you must might speak with authority here.
Do you teach journalism?
June 19, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to pull out 2006 Arkansas statistics after 14 years of Mike Huckabee and Jim Guy Tucker. Can we easily draw any conclusions?
Similarly, they cite child poverty increases in data over 2001-2004 during Bush's mismanged first term as evidence that Clinton's policy didn't work. Uh, duh, there was a recession that Bush prolonged, and perhaps proper financial measures that got temporary relief to the poor would have fared better than pig-headed tax cuts no matter what. So how is that Clinton's fault?
June 19, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I blame Penn.
June 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that happened between 2000 and 2004 is a direct result of Clinton policies, not Bush.
Don't you understand the basics of our political system? The choices made by a president have consequences, both good and ill, long after they have left office. Most of the shit we have felt over the last 8 years are based in large measure on policies that began under Clinton.
Seriously, it's spelled G-O-O-G-L-E.
June 19, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jason. I don't disagree that Bill's decisions (and non-decisions) carried consequences. Personally, he did some things I really disliked, and left things undone that I wished they had challenged, and changed. Health care obviously, but the (relatively unconstrained) rise of the financial sector perhaps the one I disliked (and worried about) the most. But on some fronts, I just give Bill - and his advisors, and all the Democrats who worked and voted for him - huge thanks. For me, those years just were not the nightmare that came before, or after.
That said, I lived through Reagan I, II and Bush I. And large numbers of people pondered, positioned and plugged FOR Bill, far-from-perfect as he was, because we HAD to stop the Reagan-Bush train. It had 12 years of momentum behind it. Its horrors - from debt & taxes & inequality to its nasty cultural twist to its foreign maneuvers - simply HAD to be stopped.
But the same as Obama & Michelle have serious constraints they're having to dance within today, Clinton had to maneuver too. And like I said, I don't like some of the stuff that resulted. But - if I can compare - Iraq II is more of a disaster for the Republicans than Iraq I. The economy is worse. And above all, culturally - and I think you've said this before - 16 years more worth of young people have come of age, and 16 years more of the old world has faded. In short, Obama has more room.
Maybe you'll say Bill's shenanigans PRODUCED Newt and Bush II, but I just gotta say - the bile, the hatred, from the Right, was there from Day One. Day Freakin' One. And Obama HAS learned from this. Make no mistake, they've studied it. And he now has to make his own decisions on when to bob and weave against the nasty Right machine. And he'll do the same in office. And some calls, we won't like.
But does Bill have to own everything that happened after him? Naw, I'd say he owns some. Otherwise, we all might just write off all his failings to Bush I, whose failings go back to Reagan, etc. Barack & Michelle are smart politicians. Better than smart, in my books. But they too face constraints, as well as a Right-wing beast that still has an awful lot of teeth. I just think they have more room, more cultural support, and a whole hell of a lot of talent - and so.... I'm wishin' and workin' and hopin' for more.
June 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Clinton is responsible for the huge tax cuts for the rich in 2001 & 2002 that reversed the surplus into a huge deficit, he's responsible for Bush not reading the memo warning "Al Qaeda planning to attack inside United States", he's responsible for Bush pumping up fake evidence of WMD's and pushing us into war despite progress by inspectors, he's responsible for $12 billion/month war costs that started in 2003, and he's responsible piles of inmates at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo denying habeas corpus and introducing torture. Get fucking real.
June 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxation was more progressive under Nixon than Clinton. Of course he wasn't responsible for what Bush did. That is another example of your reductio ad absurdum crap. Can't win on merit, so you make an argument against a point I never made.
For your information, though, Clinton bombed the fuck out of Iraq all through the 90s and did all kinds of other heinous shit I never brought up. In fact, I had a pretty good blog about it when I first got here.
Bill doesn't have a single progressive accomplishment of note to off-set the ridiculous list of corporate and republican sell-outs. He did exactly zero to halt the destruction of the middle class begun under Reagan and Daddy bush. Don't start pushing a Clinton love-fest, because you lose that argument.
June 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget it, you're rapping nonsense at this point.
June 20, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch!
June 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like a true Huey Freeman. And part of his character's inspiration in Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X.
This reminds me a lot of the dialogue from the first episode where the rich white guy invited Grand Dad to his fancy party and "Do I make you nervous FREE MAN?"
That and all the white people clapping to escape dealing with uncomfortable things uncomfortable.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that there's a huge conspiracy to make Michelle Obama watered down for mainstream America pleasure. Every time I've seen her speak she's came across as all the things you said before: strong, independent, opinionated. Maybe the campaign is trying to keep her underwraps a bit, but I really haven't seen it. If they're trying to redefine her, I don't think I've seen that either than just introducing her more fully. We'd seen the strong, independent, and opinionated. So, now we see her go on something softer like the View.
I think it's right to say "we don't know her yet" and for that reason it's important to say we shouldn't immediately go against new things we see from her.
June 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
*party and asked*
June 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Michelle Obama, but I admire and like what I see and hear. I'd hope my daughter grows up to be like her, or at least her bio - brave, true to herself, determined, and gifted.
The saddest part of the media treatment of her is the flashback aspect. It would make some Obama fans cringe, but the treatment of her is not so far off from another candidate's spouse around, say, '92. A spouse who worked outside of the home and was also intensely focused on her work and the raising of a daughter.
Feminists and those who lean that way, regardless of who they supported in the primary race, have many good, less dramatic reason to come together - but given the tenor of the attacks on Obama, this may be the call impossible to ignore.
June 19, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
BARACK IS QUIENTLY TELLING THE IRAQIS'S THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION ON GETTING US OUT IN 16 MONTHS.
this is wayY to unbelievable. not only has OBAMA lied to the country when he said one thing to us and another to canada regarding NAFTA, he is now discretely telling the IRAQ foreign ministry he has no plans to remove US troops in 16 months and that this is just camapaign rhethoric. Now, add the fact that he has also just announced he lied to the american public regarding taking public financing over private and you can better believe what i have been saying all along is that OBAMA is a snake oil salesman and you folks have been taken.
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=fe86c872-82f5-4525-afc7-e85d3ca13bd5
June 19, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop trolling people's threads with bullshit non-sequiturs.
June 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TPM.
Definite troll behavior, troll patrol please. Click the profile.
The same comment pasted at least 10 times in 10 different places.
Clearly no attempt to elaborate, refute, or address any replies.
That's clearly not an attempt at active discussion; it's just drive by spamming.
Please remove this buckshot parrot.
June 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In honor of Michelle spamming this comment on at least 7 different posts, I hereby award a $10 donation to the Obama Troll Bowl!!!!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/TrollBowl
June 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it okay with you guys to use and permit sexist language about Hillary but not Michelle? Where was the outrage for the last 6 months? I rarely saw any Obama supporters come to Hillary's defense about sexism in these threads, especially when Josh Marshall gave you the go-ahead (ref David Shuster episode).
But I did see plenty of Obama supporters say "bitch" isn't a sexist term. I saw several people defend the word "cunt." I saw a million posts about Hillary's diabolical plan to destroy the party (ref Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction). That's what makes me sick.
So I'll give you your own advice to Hillary's supporters, Scientific: Get over it!
My own take is that you're too young to figure out you're really a Republican. You're not an angry black man. You're a fraud. Because if you actually gave a shit about civil rights, you'd be out doing something about it, rather than blogging your best imitation of Angry White Man Keith Olbermann.
June 19, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
rtbg,
Ooh! Hold on, rtbg! I understand you're angry, but I think you're making a mistake and you're going to regret going here.
Please be careful. There was a lot of sexist sh*t being said about Hillary by some Obama supporters, but I don't believe Scientific is one of them.
I read Scientific's post that you're linking to. His criticisms were of Hillary and of feminists who were, in his view, behaving irrationally. There's nothing wrong with calling out people who happen to be feminists if they're being unreasonable. That doesn't mean Scientific is knocking feminism and it doesn't mean he's willing to tolerate or embrace sexism.
June 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love when someone rails against others' supposed generalizations and biases, and employs terms like "you guys". Name one post or comment of mine in which I used or condoned sexist language about Hillary Clinton. Just one. Maybe since I didn't, that means I missed the last "you guys" meeting - maybe that's what was discussed...
First, if you have a problem with Josh, take it up with him. Second, you must have been reading a different site, because I saw plenty of Obama supporters making a point of slamming those who made bigoted comments like that. You're taking the actions of a small minority and generalizing to brand an entire group of people. Isn't that the very thing you're complaining about others doing to women?
See, I'm willing to believe you. But considering the fact that you can't quote sources, and I never used any of those words - ever - why are you bringing that up here? These threads are for discussion, not personal rants. If you have something to say on the issue, by all means - start a new thread! I'd love to discuss this topic, but my hope is that we would talk about Michelle Obama here.
A million? Really? You counted? I read a few posts that directly made that comparison, and most referenced how some pundit on TV news made the comment. Now, making that comparison is reprehensible and childish, but the bit about her planning to destroy the party in the pursuit of her own goals was a viable concern and was mutually exclusive from the Alex Forrest comparisons. (That, to me, was more about some perceiving Hillary to be a little off-kilter, which has nothing to do with her gender.) Now that she's united behind Obama and appears to be doing what she can to help him, that perception was obviously wrong.
I truly mean no offense here, but please read my "Sound and fury" post again. I address a very specific group of Hillary supporters (unlike you, I didn't generalize) and I was clearly sympathetic to the sexism she suffered in the campaign.
However, with Michelle Obama, it's different in two main ways - she's Black, and she's not the candidate. I'd say those are pretty significant factors to consider.
Wait...huh?
You're right about one thing - I'm not angry. All the rest is bollocks.
Wow. Did you ever pause in the course of your rant to consider the fact that you don't know me? At all?
You have no idea what I'm doing or not doing, and I certainly don't have to blog about my resume or outside activities to impress or prove something to strangers on the Internet. I encourage you to read my posts again. Since my blogging is primarily directed at encouraging discussion, and not hostility, I sincerely hope that we can engage in that later on.
June 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know Harriet Christian at all, do you? She's in your party. She said she felt like a second-class citizen before and now she feels like she's less than that. What do you think of that?
If you sincerely wanted to engage, Scientific, you wouldn't defend yourself with sarcasm.
June 19, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't know there was only one way to have a discussion. Why don't you post the rules in your TPM blog for all of us to peruse? That'd be swell.
I never said I knew her. This is what I said in that post:
That's my only mention of Harriet Christian. Here's an ENTIRE POST that I wrote about her rant.
Here's the first paragraph:
I have my faults. But I cut the sanctimony, and avoid generalizing (notice the "many" in front of "Hillary supporters", so as not to paint all of them with the same brush; try it sometime). I ask you to avoid accusing me of what I'm not because you misread my post(s).
June 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Swell! More sarcasm!! You're very good at that, Scientific. So let me know when you want to engage as an equal rather than as a smart-ass.
Btw, you respond too quickly to be able to comprehend other people clearly. The way I know that is because I already linked to your piece about Harriet. If you had read me carefully instead of having a knee-jerk response, you'll see the link.
So, go back over what I said originally. I'm not in a race.
June 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's "Sound and fury", which you linked to and in which I mention Harriet Christian once.
Now here's the second post I linked to from my blog, "Harriet the spy", which is the post I reference in the post above.
Two different posts, actually.
Wow. Talk about being in a race. You're in such a rush to act superior and/or be pissed off that you didn't even bother to click on the link and read the posts. As I asked you to so that once you understood my actual points (rather than the ones you made up for yourself), we could have an adult conversation. But if you're going to continue talking down to me while all the while showing a distinct lack of reading comprehension, then we're headed nowhere.
June 19, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read your post about Harriet Christian, Scientific. As I say below, you think you are a clear writer, but you aren't. In every blog entry you write, you make outrageous generalizations or say something inflammatory like calling people "zealots." If you don't understand the power of words, that's your problem, not mine.
In this post you say, I never cease to be amazed at how frightened America can be of an angry Black man. Yet you never actually provide any proof that "America is afraid of an angry Black man." I don't think you've pinpointed the problem at all; I don't think America is afraid of Michelle Obama.
In your "Sound and Fury" post you say, But today, we hear persistent allegations that rampant sexism was the principal cause of Hillary Clinton's loss in the Democratic primary. Yet you don't provide any quotes or references that explicitly say that. I have heard no one say it was the "cause" of Hillary's loss. Certainly not Hillary. Not even Gloria Steinem. If you think that's what Steinem said, then you don't get her at all. To Steinem, sexism exists in American society as a cultural norm at so deep a level we don't even recognize it as such. We've come much further with recognizing and objecting to racism than we have with sexism. Sexism played a major role in the media treatment of Hillary, yes. But voters of both genders voted for her, so it wasn't a "cause" of her loss at all. There's a difference you don't comprehend.
In the "Harriet the spy" post you say, I'm falling into one of our society's most common traps: assumption based on limited information. But not nearly to the degree which many Hillary zealots have. "Zealots" must be people you do not understand. The thing you fail to hear Harriet Christian say is that she's an older woman. This is the very first thing she says, and it's the key to understanding everything that follows. In her rage she is rendered almost inarticulate: She says Obama is an "inadequate black man." She means he doesn't have the qualifications Hillary has, and he is getting preferential attention because he is black. In other words, because he's a novelty, because he's exotic. That's her assessment. She goes on to defend her recognition of his skin color, saying she's allowed to say he's "black." She's trying to say something subtle but can't succeed because a lifetime of frustration is spilling out and she can't stop it. She never had a hope of reconciling all that pent up anger until Hillary came along. She probably didn't know she even had that much anger. You don't understand her life because you believe it is completely foreign to your own. But her grief is total. It is the flip side of a coin she shares with blacks. Black Americans feel pride in Barack's achievement in the same measure as Harriet feels grief over Hillary's loss.
I see both sides. I see the grief, I see the pride. I see what you are trying to say, Scientific, even though you say it so clumsily. I see what Harriet is trying to say, even though she says it so clumsily.
The sad irony is you both can't see yourselves in each other. Since she is grieving, she's not going to be the one who can fix it. You are the one. And you fail her.
It's like you're being asked to go among the lepers now, and you refuse to go.
June 20, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I wouldn't dignify, but I had to say something also.
RuTaBaGa,
You're once again guilty of assuming things about people you don't even know.
Accusing Scientific of failing to participate in any civil rights activism, when you don't even know him - well, that's an allegation that you simply can't back up.
But you asserted it nonetheless.
Calling people out on assertions you can't back is a recipe for constant ("mis-")underestimation of your opponents.
Failing to mention something doesn't make a person foreign to it or ignorant about it. Scientific didn't tell you what his activist activities are, and he doesn't have to either. But there you are, making ad hominem attacks as if you know better.
Who are you? The thought police? Can you recognize by our avatars whether we've been involved in civil rights activism or not?
If our previous interaction is any indication, you will not engage on this just like last time. You made a lot of noise, but only a half-hearted attempt at refutation.
June 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to engage with Scientific, since he says he's willing, SPQR. It's his post I take issue with, okay with you?
June 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're being unfair, rtbg. You're using Scientific to work through your anger, and he doesn't deserve what you're heaping on him.
You're making a mistake.
And I know this doesn't involve me, so I'll shut up now.
June 19, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
RTBAG shouldn't make me angry. He/she wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
June 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anger isn't scary.
June 19, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. It was a joke. Chill out. No one's angry here but you, it seems.
June 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be fair if Scientific were fair. See, that's what equality means. The First Amendment applies to everyone.
You don't have to say "I'll shut up now," laura. But you don't actually know if I'm angry or not, do you? I have something to work out with Scientific. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't.
June 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: Won't.
June 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Scientific's post moves you to resort to name-calling...
...I assume that you're either speaking from anger or you're a sanctimonious asshole.
Since my prior experience with you gives me the firm impression that you are not an asshole, I naturally conclude you are insulting Scientific because you're angry.
June 19, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
laura, please see below for my response.
June 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually, I'm pretty sure you're angry.
June 19, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your login name was a clue.
Your immediately making it personal was another.
June 19, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and another clue below:
Now where on earth would I get the idea that you were angry? Sheesh.
June 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, known Obama supporter clearthinker said he thought fearmongering was worse than calling Hillary the c-word here.
In the same vile thread, known Obama supporter Lookingin said using the c-word was "devoid of meaning" because a troll used it. (So I imagine the same rule would apply to Michelle now when she gets called names. If a troll calls her sexist or racist names, they're devoid of meaning.)
I'll be back with more examples, since TPM's software doesn't allow me to post a million links.
June 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then take it up with him. For goodness' sakes. You do realize that all men aren't a hive mind, don't you?
Knock yourself out. You'll find that none of them involve me.
June 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off, Scientific, I'm not going to "knock myself out" for you. If you can't drop the attitude, that's your deal, I guess.
June 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's official: you are completely incapable of a) taking a joke or b) comprehending common phrases that aren't meant literally.
Think about what you're doing - you're unleashing a torrent of anger at a complete stranger who didn't say the things you're claiming he said. You didn't even read the second post I linked to in this thread! And you claim that you're the one interested in civil discussion? In what planet is that conducted by telling someone to "fuck off"?
Seek help.
June 19, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I wish we didn't have to give Michelle Obama a thought. I wish we didn't have to judge her, change her or understand her. I wish that spouses of candidates could go on living the lives that make them happy and that fulfill them without having the burden thrust upon them by a public insatiable for gossip and trivia because their spouse chose to run for an office that they did not seek or ask for.
No matter what Michelle Obama chooses to do in the White House there will be those who criticize, kvetch, gossip, malign and generally do all in their power to make her as miserable and as unhappy as they are in their lives. If she chooses to travel she will be accused of abandoning her family, if she chooses to stay with her family she'll be accused of abandoning society, if she chooses to dress well, she'll be a spendthrift, if she chooses not to spend money on fashion she'll be a tasteless housefrau unwilling to support the fashion industry - she is giving up every bit of freedom she has in exchange for a position that doesn't pay a dime and is a lightning rod for every jackass who couldn't do the job but knows exactly what Mrs. Obama should be doing at any time of the day.
I have nothing but pity and compassion for Michelle Obama and what is in store for her from the media in this country.
June 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like it either and would loathe to be in her place but I thin it's a unavoidable downside of our system of democracy. We don't have a figurehead monarchy nor a parliamentary system where figurehead power is divided, we have a single chief executive who ends up filling the role of figurehead of the culture for those that would vote that way. That means interest in his family and personality and everything that goes with it.
One can argue that it has gotten worse with the increasing power of the executive branch over time, but then you've got the example of the adoration of all things George Washington while he was alive.
If there's one bright light in this situation, it's that pretty much a majority supports the "don't go there" thing about children of presidents in recent decades. That could evolve in the future to less interest in the spouse and personal life, a more European attitude.
BTW, as to the feminist side of this story, regarding "is it chicken or the egg?" is it sexism, I think it is clear that it has happened to women simply because women have so far been our presidential spouses. I think it's an interest in the president's family and personal life that's the core problem, and that it might even happen worse to a male spouse because sexists would naturally think a husband would have more influence and importance than a wife.
June 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sadly she is in for some rough weather and not only she but the people who love her are going to be hurt by the criticism.
June 19, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Europeans are generally less interested in the spouses and personal lives of candidates? God, that sounds nice. And sane.
I hadn't thought of it that way. It'll be interesting to find out if you're right about this. I always assumed it was tied to gender. "Good" wives--and first ladies--don't speak out, don't reveal depth and dimension, don't think for themselves. "Good" first ladies are much like fashion accessories. Will men be held to these same standards? Very, very interesting.
June 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one European country, the leaders of the 2 biggest parties traded their wives in on trophy wives in the same year.
Careful about what we call "sane".
June 20, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, we agree on something. :O)
June 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "Michelle's moment"
That Michelle's moment that you are seeing right now is calculated Obama campaign strategy to create a saleable softer image for her with the public at large than the one that precedes among a smaller public and that threatened to become her "brand" as first lady if not altered.
Hello, it is no mere coincidence that all in the same week there is a positive New York Times front page story on her, that Obama and Michelle are embracing on the cover of US weekly magazine in all the supermarket checkout lanes, with the headline "Why Barack loves her", and that she appeared on "The View" yesterday (and that Larry King had Joy Behar on to talk about the latter--that's called buzz created.)
Those who are true political junkies should be asking themselves whether this narrative being created for her now is a good one for the goal of winning and whether she's doing a good job executing it, not believing it's truth to power about her real life or something like that. It's not, it's a P.R. campaign to remake her image into one suitable for a first lady!
Judge her on how well she's helping that narrative along if you want to support her campaign efforts, but don't buy it as reality. Read any post-adminsration biography of any first lady to find that out. Right now she's got a job, that job is running for first lady, it's not about being herself or speaking her mind.
I read somewhere in the midst of this all that they are giving her a much larger campaign staff than in the history of all other running mates, and they are partly there to do immediate "war room" talking points responses to any mention of Michelle in the media. And heading that staff up is the new hire Stephanie Cutter, who as John Kerry campaign director must learned a thing or two about counteracting something now called swiftboating.
June 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction; this
n the history of all other running mates
should read this
in the history of all other candidates' spouses
June 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad we agree.
June 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
so
she shops at Target, loved “Sex and the City” and never misses the girls’ recitals.
what do you think so far? :-)
June 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on board either way. That part of it I find somewhat comical, really.
June 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
i do not need to elaborate. i am giving you a link to something i found incredibly important. if you do not think obama now being caught flip flopping on his war stance than that's not my problem. callingg me a troll means nothing here. most people already are on to the troll name calling process and could care less about your name calling strategy.
June 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with Hillarista deadenders and capitalization? Either its all caps, or its all small, or its the insertion of words typed in all caps into the MIDDLE of otherwise appropriately capitalized sentences, seemingly at random.
June 19, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing's more sad than a troll trying to defend why they were trolling.
Hey, "michelle" - if it's such vital info for us to have, why did you bury it in my thread? Start your own and spread the word!
June 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The advice to a non-troll:
start your own thread to discuss your "important link." don't post your link in 10 different non-topical blogs.
Failure to comply will leave you open to continued name calling. That is, people will keep calling you a troll.
Advice to a troll:
Keep up the spamming of the same comment on 10 or more non-topical posts. Get yourself banned.
June 20, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
My Florida friend who had supported Hillary and was worried about Obama's electability saw Michelle Obama's interview on The View and was highly impressed. Cindi McCain is a wannabe princess who won't disclose her tax returns. Michelle will come off looking much more appealing than her as the campaign season moves along, I believe.
From the way they've been operating so far--I know it is very early--it sure looks to me as though the McCain campaign and the Republican party in general really don't know what the hell to do in response to Obama. Running against white male nominees in recent years they didn't encounter this kind of an issue in the same way. They appear for the moment to be a bit psyched out--and definitely off their game.
June 19, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I said, laura.
My first question, which remains unanswered, was prompted by Scientific's original lecture about how everyone in America thinks. After reading his post and the ensuing comments, I wondered:
"You guys" meant Obama supporters, because of course it was not okay with Hillary supporters. I racked my admittedly faulty memory and couldn't think of a single post by an Obama supporter who decried the rampant sexism directed at Hillary throughout the primary season, so I added:
I started scrolling through Scientific's old posts, and I didn't see a single one that expressed outrage at the sexism Clinton endured by the MSM. It's possible I missed any such posts because I got distracted by this one, where Scientific says Clinton's most devoted supporters (a.k.a. "zealots" above) should just "get over it."
I expected to get the usual denials from you guys (thanks for being so predictable), so I carefully added:
Please refresh your own faulty memory about the things Obama supporters had to say about Hillary's response to David Schuster's "pimp" comment here. Many TPMers thought "pimping Chelsea" was perfectly acceptable language by a mainstream media personality.
I already gave some examples of this claim; I could give many more. I could give some from around the time Rev. Wright's video "Hillary Ain't Never Been Called a Nigger" video surfaced. Obama supporters defended Wright, not Hillary who was used as an unwilling and unfair example for a sermon in a public setting. But as you'll see, that was generally okay with Obama supporters.
This is where I linked to Scientific's "Sound and Fury" post. In that post, Scientific justifies his own ignorance toward other people's struggles while claiming he isn't ignorant. This just doesn't wash. He can't even comprehend Gloria Steinem's article and he ticks off the usual right-wing talking points/ denials about the sexism directed against Hillary during the campaign. So I concluded:
I can tell by Scientific's ignorance about people who are not like him (in this case, women), that he has not done much work in his life yet to challenge his own biases and mental blocks. Hence his generalizations that all Americans, especially White Americans, think the same. Hence his need to use heavy sarcasm to make every point. Sarcasm often indicates an underlying anger; at the very least, it is a device to provoke a certain response.
Finally, Scientific's inability to hear the parallels between Harriet Christian, of all people, and blacks as second-class citizens in our society is remarkable. If Scientific did actually work on civil rights issues, he would know that everyone has fundamental rights, and that everyone should have them, because denying anyone (including Harriet Christian) their voice is when democracy fails.
Scientific demands we understand the racist and sexist slurs and smears directed against Michelle Obama now. Yet he seems to have little understanding of others, and he blames others for his own ignorance. What is that if not a fraud? He isn't the feminist he says he is.
June 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might not seen it as often as you did, but I definitely decried the sexism against Clinton from time to time.
June 19, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you did, Ben.
June 20, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
(An aside - I've never seen someone blockquote themselves as much as you did. You realize you appeared to be responding to yourself in some areas of the post, yes?)
OK, here we go.
Guess if I never entered a blog post (not merely a comment in a thread, mind you - a blog post) on TPM that said exactly what you wanted me to say, I'm not a feminist. I didn't know the underlying characteristic of feminism was expressing anger at every slight. Oh, and any statements about sexism in the race can't be on your own blog - it has to be on TPM. Gotcha.
Yes, we know. Most of us were here, and we read such comments. Most of us decried them as sexist. Maybe all of us should just keep a log of our thread comments here for when folks like you show up. Only then could we defend ourselves from being lumped in with a few idiots.
Wow. This is almost scary. You really don't know me.
Everyone, judge for yourself.
Anyone else get that from what I've written? Please let me know, because if I were to say something that stupid, I'd want to know.
"especially White Americans"? Name one place I've said something - anything applied to all White people. Your lazy reading is leading you to that conclusion. I am very careful to never even give the appearance of generaliztion, whereas you seem not to care much. Pot, kettle, black. (No pun intended.)
Please. Harriet Christian called Obama an "inadequate Black male" and said she's voting for McCain. Why, because her rights were being violated? And by whom? Obama?
That lady was angry beyond belief, and in the post "Harriet the spy" (which is a play on a Judy Blume title, and was linked more times in this thread than I'd care to admit), I try to get to the roots of what caused that anger, while offering my own opinion. Nowhere in it did I say that her rights should be squelched. And you're on me about civil rights - while you're defending Christian's racist rant? How's that work, exactly?
I'm a Black man, born and raised poor in America. And you're going to tell me about fundamental rights and equality. That's too rich.
That is nothing if not a lie.
I'll say it for the last time. Try actually reading my posts. Slowly. Carefully. Please.
June 19, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I guess you think you're a really clear writer, Scientific. But you're not quite there yet. You're just one more Keith Olbermann ranter.
Not to worry, however, because ego goes a long way, and you've got plenty of that. So good luck to you.
If you run into any problems, try checking the ego. I know you're smart, you just have an enormous chip on your shoulder that gets in the way of any conversation with people who disagree with you.
One real question: Are you from the East Side or West Side of Cleveland? I'm from the West Side.
June 20, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I don't think you've been careful at all. You've made broad generalizations about Obama supporters, then you proceeded to project your resentment on Scientific. You accused him of things he never said and doesn't believe. You've misplaced your anger.
rtbg, this is simply untrue. What Scientific did say is
He is arguing the accuracy of the claim that sexism was the major contributor to Clinton's loss. Of course, it's not easy to answer just what were the causes, let alone tease out and quantify to what degree sexism contributed.
Also, when Scientific said...
...he was criticizing Steinem's article.
I have enormous respect for Steinem, but I agree with Scientific's opinion of her article. That article disappointed me because some of her reasoning was deeply flawed. And no, Scientific doesn't tick off Republican talking points against it--nowhere does he do that.
Another area where I think you're being unfair:
Remember, Ms. Christian made a distinction in her rant that was telling: she took umbrage that Hillary was being, in her view, slighted in favor of "an inadequate black man". My take on Ms. Christian's grievance (and lots of us understood her this way) was that she felt it was Hillary's turn -- this nomination rightfully belonged to Clinton, and Barack Obama, a mere 'affirmative action' candidate, was 'stealing' it from her.
But this is a ridiculous and destructive notion to embrace, especially in the Democratic Party. We seem to keep treading into this dangerous terrain, where those who are very sensitive to sexism are pitting their hardships against those who are very sensitive to racism.
The truth is, both Clinton and Obama were very strong, popular candidates whose campaigns ran an extremely close race. Each candidate earned her or his support, mostly from their positive appeal (I admit this is just my humble opinion!).
What Scientific said of Harriet Christian was this:
Could he have been more sympathetic? Sure. But I don't think the feeling he expressed toward Ms. Christian gives you a reasonable basis to insinuate that Scientific wants to deny Ms. Christian her rights:
Come on, now!
rtbg, I think you're still angry that more folks didn't stand up and speak loudly enough against the sexism Hillary endured during her campaign. Actually, I think that's a fair thing to say and I sympathize with that. But now you're expressing resentment by begrudging support to Michelle now that it's happening to her. Again, I understand what you're feeling, but it's unfair to claim that all Obama supporters found sexism to be acceptable for Hillary but unacceptable for Michelle. Because that's simply untrue.
I've seen plenty of sexist attacks against Clinton, even here at TPM, and it has been disappointing. But those attacks did not come from Scientific. Or from me.
You know, I thought about mentioning that Clinton supporters didn't stand up and speak loudly enough about racist attacks against Obama. But do you see how that would just distract from and muddy the message I'm trying to get across to you? We need to understand that those two things should not be played against each other.
What I ask of you is to consider this (I'm pulling this from one of my previous posts so I won't have to re-type it):
June 19, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Laura.
June 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. This was a great post and thread.
Seems like you and I see eye to eye on a few things, huh?
June 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt. Let's keep it rolling.
June 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to openly solicit, but what the hell: if you like what I'm writing, please visit my blog and spread the word. Virtually everything I post here is cross-posted from there.
Many thanks!
June 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will visit! I didn't realize it existed until tonight.
Yeah, I really like what you have to say.
June 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
laura,
I never accused you or Scientific of using sexist language, although I would accuse you both of permitting sexist comments to go unflagged in these threads. In other words, I would accuse you both of remaining silent. If you ever spoke out and I happened to miss it, then I would apologize for wrongly accusing you.
I never said all Obama supporters are the same. I said it was rare for an Obama supporter at TPM to object to sexist attacks on Hillary. I'm certainly not the first Clinton supporter to say this on this site. Many, many others have said exactly what I am saying. I guess you consider such comments as isolated blips and dismiss them.
I did choose my words carefully, but I don't think you have read me carefully enough. You seem to assume I share some level of anger with Harriet Christian that I don't share. If you are jumping to such conclusions about how I feel, you definitely don't know me well enough to do that, so please stop. Thanks.
June 20, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have no evidence on which to claim this. None! You do a search of my comments and it only goes back a few days! Unless you've been keeping my posts in a catalogue...have you?
Just because you are many doesn't make you correct. And again, what does Hillary have to do with what I've posted here about Michelle Obama?
Take your own advice.
June 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do, moron. I've read what you write ever since I learned you were from Cleveland. I have never read a peep of protest out of you about the many sexist rants against Clinton in these threads. So you're not a feminist. You don't get it.
Doesn't make us incorrect, either. The point is, you don't stop long enough to find out about other people's points of view when they don't align with yours. You just dismiss. You want to be taken seriously, then you have to take other people seriously. Because sometimes you are wrong and other people have something to teach you.
I'll make it as simple and blunt as possible, Scientific: Why should I give a shit about racism and sexism directed against Michelle when you never gave a shit about sexism directed against Hillary?
There are two answers to this, btw: one is simple and one is complicated. I wonder which one you'll pick.
Don't you find it ridiculous for someone to say to you, essentially, "Just get over racism already!" Well it's ridiculous for you to expect people to just "get over" sexism (or ageism) also.
June 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama rocks!
Vote for her cookies!:
http://www.parents.com/app/voting/index.jsp?id=/templatedata/parents/voting/data/1211208167842.xml&_requestid=810663
June 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I donno if somebody else came up with it first, but Knit-Browed Lil Hulk-Dude wins my vote for coming up with that "You Guys Club" idea. Damn, that thing's got money written all over it. Personally, I can't count the number of times I've been lumped in with "You Guys" for some reason or another. Check it:
1- You Guys Are All The Same.
2- You Guys Are Such FUCKING Assholes.
3-7- You Guys Never Clean Up... Talk About Anything Else... Should Just Shut Up... Have Never Raised ONE SINGLE FINGER TO HELP COMBAT Racism And/Or Sexism.
So I'd suggest we set up a formal You Guys Club. (No women, unless you can PROVE you meet the criteria above. ESPECIALLY the asshole part. Start practicing now, standards are high.)
We can have songs, T-shirts, avatars, all of it. Hell, I'll even show you how to push tubes up your nose - pleasure such as you've never experienced (errrr, other than on these pages.)
YG Club (HRC-Supporting Drones): Meets every Mon, Wed, Fri.
YG Club (Obama-Loving Freaks): Tues, Thurs, Sat.
Sunday's we rest. And plot.
June 19, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No women??? Look here, buddy! I demand equal asshole status if I've earned it!
Um...I'll pass on the tubes up the nose thang. I don't really get that. But I'll take a t-shirt!
June 19, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I can't make Tuesdays. Bible study.
But I'm with Laura - I want my t-shirt.
June 19, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta get the order out to Mumbai by Saturday, so if you could send your sizes (Guys, Guys+, Whole LOTTA Guy); fabric (Polyester Mesh, Burlap, Naughty Silk); and $7.99 (sorry, I misspoke - $27.99) then yeah, we'll get that movin'.
But do you want the generic "You Guys __________"
Or, something more customized? You know, "All The Same", "Such Fucking Assholes," or (fast-seller here), "Haven't The Faintest Fucking Idea What I've Been Through"?
Please specify.
June 19, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh! Ooh! Option number 3! It perfectly captures the ridiculous circular firing squad progressives keep finding themselves in. That's what we seem to be about, huh?
June 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah. And make mine burlap. Extra small. I want to make sure I'm as miserable as possible when I wear this thing. I won't be out-suffered!
June 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
(laughing my ass off...)
June 19, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like the irony of Number 3 in "naughty silk."
What a hilarious idea!
June 20, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't make any of those days. Do you give private lessons?
Be sure to gimme a t-shirt or I'll rip out those sinus tubes myself.
June 19, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Yer our 3rd caller. Free shirt!
June 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeh, if you don't give Cricket hers, she'll just steal yours right off your back. :)
She seems sweet and all, but she's a thug.
June 20, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
But before the whining starts up let's get clear on the money:
- 1% of all PROFITS go to each person who's commented so far.
- Scientific gets 35% because he came up with the name. But then again, Gasket did kinda spur him on. Creative conflict brings out the best in us, clearly. Ok - commmmpromise. In the spirit of reaching out, touching, sharing and feeling the love..... I say.... Cage Match. Winner take all.
- I get 30% of revenues, coz I got a business to run here goddammit. So why don't You Guys All Get Outta My Hair?
June 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink