IJ wrote: Oh, JR, JR... Ok--there's nothing more to discuss with you.
Heh. Go ahead, shut me out. I'll talk for the both of us.
Oh, JR, JR... black support for Obama is clearly racist, and the almost uniformly white opposition is clearly not racist.
And while you shut me out, consider the one-way street you've presented. If blacks almost uniformly support Obama, then who's left to oppose?
You identify racism throughout our society and have yet to say a thing about SELF REPORTED racism in both parties
Self-reported racism is guilt, plain and simple. It is not something you use to judge those who aren't 'self-reported.'
and subconscious racism well documented by researchers--and Obama's critics are as innocent as the beaten snow.
What is this, Minority Report? You can't judge someone without evidence. You can't convict them of racism without just cause. You can't go around saying that everybody opposing Obama harbors a little racist in their heart of hearts, and without that, they'd go along for the ride.
Every person on this bloody planet is not a racist, Ian, even if you think you are.
Glenn wrote:
Personal observation, I watched the interview. They were accusing him of wanting teachers to read a "Miranda Act" (in their words) to students before each reciting, and keep pushing that accusation which they apparently pulled out of thin air (they offered no evidence that his group had ever advocated anything of that nature), even after he had repeatedly stated that the goal was merely to create a letter sent home to parents informing them of the 1943 Supreme Court decision. When their diversionary tactic did not fluster him, they moved on to trying to discredit the notion that parents should be informed parents of this right, and when he then made the case that this would help schools by reducing complaints by parents, they next moved on to trying to discredit his organization and then ended the interview. Fox News had no interest in hearing his side or reasoning, they only had him on to attack him to push their agenda (like so many interviews on all news channels these days unfortunately).
What interview? Who was interviewed? How did they represent Fox News? Were other cable networks interviewed? Who did the interview? Who were 'they?' Too many questions, and no answers.
Who said conspiracy? I think you, Bill, and Hillary are the only ones seeing conspiracies...
I think it was you who got Bill going on this being a conspiracy
My inference from Bill's comment about being opposed to songs glorifying politicians is that he would not be supportive of the song about Bush either.
Except the song wasn't about Bush. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's a song, and it mentions 'Bush' and it MUST be the same thing.
As for the two songs, the intent in creating them was the same.
Obviously.
However one happened to be at a White House event covered by the media and one at a local school event and didn't make the media until months later, so in that aspect they are "apples and rocks" in that the one praising Bush was meant to make a media statement while the one praising Obama was just meant for the kids' parents.
I thought you just said the intent was the same?
Oh, and I'm not Gene
Got that. My apologies. You two seem show the same disregard for context.
Those lyrics aren't that offensive. But there are some real knee-slappers in there.
> Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
> For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Umm... What great accomplishments? This was the biggest beef against both Obama and Palin. Neither one of them had DONE anything yet. (FWIW, that makes it easier to slip a lemon into the office.) About all we have to judge him on is his community activist deeds, his talent (?) as a constitutional law instructor, and his associations (good and bad). Experience for the chief executive of the most powerful nation in the free world? None. Zero. Nada. Zippo.
> The first black American to lead this great nation!
How do you define "black"? Is this fellow black?
Same 50/50 mix. Good old fashioned American mongrel. Who gets the honor of being black?
And FWIW, I thought Bill Clinton was the first Black president... [1]
Jason Rees wrote:
What interview? Who was interviewed? How did they represent Fox News? Were other cable networks interviewed? Who did the interview? Who were 'they?' Too many questions, and no answers.
See my previous posts, and yours since you asked for more information to clarify my criticism of this segment on Fox News. Since it was an interview on Fox News, it was Fox newscasters conducting the interview. I watched it in a waiting room at a car repair shop so I don't have the name of the guy they interviewed or his organization, but it was around 8:30am on 9/16 and might be listed somewhere. Why would Fox interview other cable networks for it? Interviewing competing networks is rare in the cable news business from what I have seen.
Except the song wasn't about Bush. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's a song, and it mentions 'Bush' and it MUST be the same thing.
So a song that praises Bush is not about Bush? Regardless of whether others were mentioned as well, it was still a song praising the then-current president. No double-standards please.
I thought you just said the intent was the same?
It was, the intent of both was to praise the president who was in office at the time. What I pointed out was that the intended audience was different, as was the scope of the presentation.
Got that. My apologies. You two seem show the same disregard for context.
Actually, context is at the heart of the points I have made, having put the clip that started this in context with what has been done for at least one other president and other more pervasive forms of indoctrination. I really could care less about politics or political parties, as I have made clear many times over. However my sense of fair play doesn't agree with one president being held to different standards from other presidents, particularly when he is being taken to task here for events over which he has no control. It's not like Obama, or anyone in his administration, recruited this teacher to teach the song to the students. These types of distractions are merely partisan politics. I don't agree with partisan politics/positions of any kind, my rebellion against a staunchly partisan democrat father. It's when positions become partisan that context is lost. Case in point:
Jason Rees wrote:
Turns out the RNC isn't 'letting a good crisis go to waste,' either. They're putting that video out in fundraising emails.
So a song that praises Bush is not about Bush? Regardless of whether others were mentioned as well, it was still a song praising the then-current president. No double-standards please.
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
Compare that to the lyrics I posted above. One clearly is all about Obama. The other one mentions Bush after 'Our country,' 'People,' and 'Congress,' and before 'FEMA.'
But I suppose in your mind it's still 'all about Bush.'
The two are not the same; the first is not a precedent for the other.
"If blacks almost uniformly support Obama, then who's left to oppose?"
I guess you missed the point. You can't very well acknowledge that blacks line up for Obama because of race then dismiss all racism amongst those who oppose him. That's a double standard. I don't share it--I believe race plays some role in both opposition and support. And if you want to be concrete: asians, latinos, middle easterners.
"Self-reported racism is guilt, plain and simple. It is not something you use to judge those who aren't 'self-reported.'"
I haven't singled out any individuals because I'm not a mind reader. But, it is really, really obtuse to look at a society where a large fraction of the people admit they have racial biases and conclude that those biases aren't affecting criticism of the black President. What, they're only for nonpresidents? Further, self reported racism is far from "guilt, pure and simple." You think that guy who shot up the Holocaust museum is all tore up inside about his hatreds? I would agree with you that there are plenty of guilty white NPR listening prius driving ivy league middle to upper class democrats, but there's still plenty of people who are honest about their racism and not particularly apologetic about it--I've met some. They're whites, people like Gladwell who just deals with the facts as they are without filtering it to fit his worldview, and people like a guy I saw on the news who preferred to hire latinos because he felt they worked harder than blacks (he was black).
"What is this, Minority Report? You can't judge someone without evidence. You can't convict them of racism without just cause. You can't go around saying that everybody opposing Obama harbors a little racist in their heart of hearts, and without that, they'd go along for the ride. Every person on this bloody planet is not a racist, Ian, even if you think you are."
I think I now understand why you're upset by my comments and don't respond to the evidence and endorse concepts such as the one where racism only works for Obama: you're not reading what I write. I didn't judge "someone," I've said I think that racism, conscious or subconscious, is probably responsible for SOME fraction of the criticism. There's lots of other good reasons, like legitimate disagreement, and ignorant people who are freaking out about nonexistant death panels and raising holy hell like their mullahs have them in a tizzy over some cartoons. But I NEVER said anything close to what you're claiming: that every Obama opponent is racist, or that they'd like him if he weren't black, or that every person is racist. In fact I've very clearly said the opposite: I've said that "a substantial fraction" of our society still has racial bias which means many, probably the majority DON'T.
Are you lying or just not reading?
Bill, whethere TSA workers "job" is to find pot now, or whatever, it's true that racism is not the main theme of the thread, so sure, I'll drop it. I'll just conclude by saying that the people who see racism as a pervasive malignant force everywhere in everyone all the time are paranoid and self victimizing. But the people who think that anyone who perceives (or merely notes conclusive research on the matter) racism at any time must be one of those nuts is just the mirror image of the first nut. I occasionally reflect on my feelings about people who are "other" for many reasons, took the IAT, be honest with myself, and try to do the right thing--no biggie. I don't know why it is so offensive to people, especially conservatives, to discuss whether racism plays a role in how we do something, but my guess is there's so enough truth to the history of racism especially amongst conservatives, despite their furious efforts to appear pure minded and colorblind and antiaffirmative action etc, that some of it hits too close to home.
The lady doth protest too much.
Now, back to how a few kids singing a song = the advent of black Hitler youth in America.
Personally, in principle I'm in favor of health care reform, even a single-payer system. I figure we've already embarked on a certain subset of the socialist agenda in having the huge socialist programs called social security, medicare, and medicaid. Like IJ said, nobody to speak of is principled enough to get rid of these. It'd be tough for my mother, so neither do I. Nevertheless, what we have now is inequitable, particularly to people who don't qualify for medicaid and who don't live long enough to qualify for social security or medicare. I think these people should get something in return for all the taxes they're forced to pay. Maybe if they could afford health care, some of them might live to collect social security. This half-way point we've got to just doesn't seem all that great to me, so I'm ill-inclined to try to "hold the line" right here.
IJ wrote:You can't very well acknowledge that blacks line up for Obama because of race then dismiss all racism amongst those who oppose him. That's a double standard. I don't share it--I believe race plays some role in both opposition and support. And if you want to be concrete: asians, latinos, middle easterners.
The answer is non-obvious, given that some-odd 82% of blacks self-identify as Democrats to begin with. However, it seems to me completely counterproductive to bring up racism in defense of the president. It's the worst thing to do. Even if there are some elements of racism behind some of the opposition, painting the opposition as being racially motivated is just going to tick off those who are acting on principle in opposing the president's agenda. It makes me angry on their behalf, even if in this matter I am not among them.
Jason Rees wrote:
But I suppose in your mind it's still 'all about Bush.'
I never said that it was "all" about Bush, nor was that thought in my mind. In fact, as you quoted I said just the opposite. But, a song that includes a line praising turnip greens is a song about turnip greens and a song that includes a line praising Bush is a song about Bush. Sometimes an apple is an apple.
the first is not a precedent for the other
I doubt either would be a precedent. Songs praising leaders, including U.S. presidents, are hardly new.
And, again, to reiterate: It's not the President who keeps referring to himself as "The One" or "The Chosen One" or any of that foolishness. It's the moronic hyperbole of his political opponents. Rest assured, sometimes even his political supporters could definately use coming back in from way out in left field. And, again, it's not like the President solicited this song or is trying to develop a cult of personality like in North Korea. Read the lyrics and you'll see that Bill is right: nothing too objectionable, and slightly a bit comical in parts. Maybe the song had to be somewhat simple for school-aged children to understand. Not troubled by it much, but maybe it shouldn't have happened.
You've mentioned before about how Obama is not descended from slaves, but from a Kenyan who came to the US to study and a white woman. Would Jim Crow or any of the other anti-miscegenation laws care about that parentage? Would they have let him study at a school next to white students? Would they let him ride in the front of a bus, or in the white section of the train? And Obama, I don't think, ever cared about talking black. He was too busy trying to not be so damn conflicted about being a mixed-race child with an Indonesian step-father and not knowing where the hell he fit in. Too bad we didn't grow up together. I would have thought he was cool!
And as for him not have any real great accomplishments: Surprise, surprise surprise, but Obama actually agrees with you. From his speech at ASU:
In all seriousness, I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven't yet achieved enough in my life. I come to embrace it; to heartily concur; to affirm that one's title, even a title like President, says very little about how well one's life has been led - and that no matter how much you've done, or how successful you've been, there's always more to do, more to learn, more to achieve.
So, again, we are transferring way too much on the President for some daffy actions of his supporters, and putting way too much stock on the daffy actions of his detractors.
Gene
PS - Right on about Bill being the first black President! Not too many people get that reference. Now, the question is how did he get to be called that....
Gene DeMambro wrote:
So, again, we are transferring way too much on the President for some daffy actions of his supporters, and putting way too much stock on the daffy actions of his detractors.
And that has to be the best description of this topic that I've seen so far.
Should the teacher have done that? No, I think it was a poor decision, and I would not have been happy if one of my kids had been in there. But I would blame the teacher responsible, not the president. And maybe the parents of those kids were all fine with it, but that still puts it in their hands not the president's. Heck, I remember singing praises to past presidents in school, and neither my parents nor I thought anything of it (well, other than that I absolutely hated being forced to do anything on stage in public). Maybe it is only acceptable after 100+ years have passed since they were president (it's certainly not because the presidents we celebrate did not have their fair share of detractors).
The ironic thing is that without YouTube, and more importantly the detractors bringing the clip to everyone's attention, only those who attended the performance would have ever known about it, it would not have been blown up into a national issue. But the goal of detractors is to make issues out of non-issues, and that unfortunately will never change.
According to the Boston Globe(and other sources), these songs (and others praising other significant black Americans) were apparently performed in February during a classroom's Black History Month activities, as part of a presentation for a special guest, author Charisse Carney-Nunez (who may have been the original source for the clip being on YouTube). While lampooning the issue in his usual fashion on the Daily Show tonight, Jon Stewart also mentioned that a letter was sent home to parents ahead of time about the activities and that none of them complained. I cannot find anything about this online though, not sure where Stewart got this info or how much detail the parents may have gotten. At any rate, there does not appear to have been any complaints from them after the performance. They likely had forgotten about it until the furor started last week. Still not the best of decisions, but apparently not one that bothered the parents.
And of course the detractors are acting calmly and rationally in their opposition:
-According to Fox News "the tension at B. Bernice Young Elementary School escalated to such a degree Thursday that the school was placed temporarily on lockdown after its principal received death threats over a YouTube video that showed nearly 20 children being taught songs lauding the president" (although there is apparently now some debate as to whether their have indeed been any death threats made)
-Angry callers from around the country mistake Northwast Arkansas School for NJ elementary school New Jersey, Arkansas, I can see how people would confuse the two.
The other aspect that the school is concerned about, from a legal standpoint, is that the clip was posted online without the permissions of all the kids parents.
Glenn wrote:Heck, I remember singing praises to past presidents in school, and neither my parents nor I thought anything of it (well, other than that I absolutely hated being forced to do anything on stage in public). Maybe it is only acceptable after 100+ years have passed since they were president (it's certainly not because the presidents we celebrate did not have their fair share of detractors).
I don't remember singing any presidents' praises, but I think you have it exactly right. The president in question can't be one in living memory, the occasional centenarian aside.
The ironic thing is that without YouTube, and more importantly the detractors bringing the clip to everyone's attention, only those who attended the performance would have ever known about it, it would not have been blown up into a national issue. But the goal of detractors is to make issues out of non-issues, and that unfortunately will never change.
What's ironic about it? Sure, the president's not to blame for that nonsense, but it's symbolic of a battle for hearts and minds that is very much an issue. The only question is how isolated an incident it was, and I don't mean just incidences of songs, rather of activities of that general ilk. You-tube is anecdotal. It can't tell you prevalence. Detractors assume the worst, supporters assume the best. Same mistake, probably.
