|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 14:41:42 GMT -5
Man ain't that the truth. And it sums up why I hated that smarmy FOX clip - by a magnitude far outweighing any possibility of being offended by what Ralph Nader said. In a better world [without FOX], the news reporter would have not seized upon the term "Uncle Tom", but rather, in a brave effort to further race relations, he should and would have focused on Nader's part of the speech where he was holding Obama accountable to all the poor and disenfranchised human beings in this country.
Reporter: "Yes indeed Mr. Nader, and well we should hold Mr. Obama accountable for just that. Thank you for reminding us in the midst of our dizzying celebration, and by the way, we here at this network just want to know, are you going to run again for the Presidency in 2012, or don't you think your energies might be better spent running for local govt?"
And see what Nader had to say to that.
I know, I know.
That world is a fantasy...
|
|
|
|
Post by samplestiltskin on Nov 7, 2008 14:53:45 GMT -5
fantasy land that i want no part of, yet somehow it mystically seeps into my life unbidden telling me more things i cannot do and limiting every aspect of my existence. i wish i could get away with ignoring the bullshit, unfortunately the bullshit has forced itself in as my new reality. i'm trying not to piss all over everyone's ecstatic parade of hope and the dawn of some kind of New Age of American Greatness. really.... really........ trying. this is why i stay out of politics. my dour outlook equates me with some unpatriotic buttfuck persona i don't care enough to defend. everyone should indulge in their fantasy of choice, mine just happens to piss off everyone else, liberals, conservatives and phlegmatics included.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 15:21:44 GMT -5
hey guys ! It just occured to my *why* this thorny one could even *possibly* consider defending what would normally be considered a perfectly reprehensible thing for Nader to say. Its because, frankly, I do not believe for one second he is or ever was racist, not in a 50s way or anything like that. I applaud Nader for having the balls to come out and use that term in a frank manner for the explicit reason that I feel if you take race OUT of the equation - - that THAT is precisely the OPPOSITE of RACISM. See what I mean? If I myself were black, I would applaud any white person who had the guts to not walk on eggshells around me. And frankly, THAT is precisely what I think Nader is "guilty" of, if anything. Guilty as charged of being 100% FREE of racism. i.e, Its definitely a matter of reverse or double-reverse racism; a finely balanced twi-edged thing that you can't blame anyone for wanting to just avoid altogether. Hence: I applaud Nader for saying "fuck that, I'll speak openly and honestly and frankly I will call a spade for a spade and if the overly sensitive American Public can't handle that then screw em". Furthermore, I would think that at least the intelligent contingency of the black community would applaud him for that, too. So by being racist he's actually not being racist? No mater how you split it uncle tom is a racist term...the argument is whether it's meant to be derogatory and even in Nader's context being an uncle tom is bad thing. Now, I grant you he didn't actually call Obama an uncle tom, he was warning against being one. U suppose even more to the point is do you feel Foxnews is now defending Obama? Do you feel as though Shepard Smith ignored the larger point as distraction from an attack on President Elect Obama? Do you feel that Foxnews is a source for hard hitting unbiased journalism? I guess part of this is that I don't understand why this of all things is hitting you this hard. I'm sorry, thorn, saying say he was actually trying defend black people is maybe the dumbest thing you've said in a long time. Let me try to put it another way - does anyone not feel like holding him responsible for the promises he's made is important? Not very many. I could understand if he was trying to say something important and no one was listening. To me it comes down to did he say it to get his message heard or did he say it to get Ralph Nader heard? I have to think it's latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 15:23:07 GMT -5
marples:
You want no part of a world wherein its people see through the surface technical bullshit and grasp the real meat and meaning ? Well I can't stand this surface- materialist- litiginous - murderers getting off on a technicality - while innocents are condemned for it - - plasticized aspect of our world. But stating that is like stating I prefer to breathe; it should be intuitively obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 15:25:43 GMT -5
Also for the record, I never said I was or anyone should be offended by it only that it was dumb thing he shouldn't have said for two reasons, A) it only serves to distract from what he's trying to say and B) I feel it was motivated solely from a self serving agenda. No, thorns you don't have to agree. I just don't want you to think "we" were ganging up on you out of a blind loyalty to Obama. For me it has nothing what so ever to do with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 15:30:25 GMT -5
You want no part of a world wherein its people see through the surface technical bullshit and grasp the real meat and meaning ? Well I can't stand this surface- materialist- litiginous - murderers getting off on a technicality - while innocents are condemned for it - - plasticized aspect of our world. But stating that is like stating I prefer to breathe; it should be intuitively obvious. Again I disagree with the premise not the conclusion. I don't think Nader was trying to cut through any bullshit. It still comes down to why that term was necessary and the only answer because it was nice juxtaposition from uncle sam and Obama is black (he has to be for it to make sense). I just don't see how that cuts through any bullshit...instead it adds an extra layer imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 15:31:46 GMT -5
So by being racist he's actually not being racist? No mater how you split it uncle tom is a racist term...the argument is whether it's meant to be derogatory and even in Nader's context being an uncle tom is bad thing. Now, I grant you he didn't actually call Obama an uncle tom, he was warning against being one. U suppose even more to the point is do you feel Foxnews is now defending Obama? Do you feel as though Shepard Smith ignored the larger point as distraction from an attack on President Elect Obama? Do you feel that Foxnews is a source for hard hitting unbiased journalism? I guess part of this is that I don't understand why this of all things is hitting you this hard. I'm sorry, thorn, saying say he was actually trying defend black people is maybe the dumbest thing you've said in a long time. Let me try to put it another way - does anyone not feel like holding him responsible for the promises he's made is important? Not very many. I could understand if he was trying to say something important and no one was listening. To me it comes down to did he say it to get his message heard or did he say it to get Ralph Nader heard? I have to think it's latter. Listen up. I would admire Nader if it turns out that he knew all along he would never win the presidency but was trying to be heard. Which in fact is not so far from the truth, I think. Point of fact is, I admire Nader. Period. No smarmy Fox news reporter is going to pull the wool over my eyes by fixating on someone's misuse of a racist term and get me to go along with their fake outrage. If anyone's racist its probably Smith and guilty of reverse racism, not the other way around. Now please understand I say that to drive home a point - not that I actually think Smith = racist. But I do happen to think that the delicate matter of how racism is perceived is one helluva double edged blade, and sharp as a razor on both ends at that. In my view the day a white guy can call a black guy a "niggah" (and decidedly not with the derisive "-er" on the end) - is the day when we could truly say racism has largely eroded away. But then again perhaps racism is inherent to us as living, breathing beings. Like collectivism, or cliques. Personally I can see through the surface of Nader's statement and understand he was not being racist at all -- something I think even you admitted to there, for one second. So why keep harping back on the "oooh, what a douche/ put him on an ice floe" bullshit? Put that Smith guy on a fucking ice floe why don't you and in fact the entire Fox network? Go ahead and try and defend them, that sure would be interesting. The entire Fox network and all their employees are indefensible. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 15:37:57 GMT -5
I've never even attempted to defend foxnews. I don't see why I have to pick a dog here. I think they were both being dicks. I've admitted from the beginning I think Nader Nader had larger message that was being ignored specifically because of the words he choose which is exactly why he shouldn't have said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 15:40:51 GMT -5
Also for the record, I never said I was or anyone should be offended by it only that it was dumb thing he shouldn't have said for two reasons, A) it only serves to distract from what he's trying to say and B) I feel it was motivated solely from a self serving agenda. No, thorns you don't have to agree. I just don't want you to think "we" were ganging up on you out of a blind loyalty to Obama. For me it has nothing what so ever to do with him. Man thats cool, and I have repeatedly said it was a stupid thing for Nader to say. Yet I maintain that what he was actaully saying was a good thing, not racist, and clearly, he is not irrelevant, only his candidacy for the presidency might be construed as arguably being irrelevant; but the man himself? WTF. None of us are irrelevant. So don't go around saying any one of us is. Be specific, world. Say his candidacy is irrelevant. But on that issue, I can find an argument that supports his candidacy for president as being relevant, for at least a couple of reasons. 1. The building up of a third party towards a future 2. The platform to voice his opinions. AS IF none of the rest of us here have an "ego". Fuck that finger-pointing hypocritical bullshit right now. We all have a god damned ego. Jesus. I personally feel that Nader has intelligent things to say on the economy and politics in general. So if he can get those opinions out there for people to think about as they weigh their own decisions as to who they should vote for, then he is contributing beneficially to spreading knowledge and awareness to the masses. So you think its the stupidest thing I've stated here, that to be racist is not racist? Ha ! I never said that now, did I. We happen to be on different platforms here; and what I'm saying was not that, not by a long shot. You've demeaned what I've painstakingly typed out here (to my satisfaction as of my last post I think it was, by the way) by generalizing it into those terms. Again, "AS IF" I'd *actually* state "Being racist is not racist". Duh. WTF. Jesus Christ. I know I write a lot of very detailed and specific things, and my posts are too long, but for crying out loud, go back and read what I said in my last 3 or 4 posts, and it should all be there perfectly in black and white. My case was rested before this post. p.s. If you think I'm "worked up" or even in the slightest mad at you, etc, think again. Don't forget we're seperated by a world and a computer screen. You still da man to me Mantis. . . . once a friend always a friend. So its all good . . . . but you should know that about me by now. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 16:01:04 GMT -5
No, Thorn I get it, when you can say something that would normally be consider racist and it isn't considered racist anymore is a great thing and maybe this is the beginning of Nader's crusade to take "uncle tom" back maybe I'm just to cynical about politicians to see it that way. However uncle tom is without question considered racist even if Nader says it isn't. I hear it a lot but white people insisting they should be able to call black people niggah's does nothing what so ever to help race relations. As far as I'm concerned they can have it, I don't want to call my black friends niggah. Have you seen that episode of South Park where Stan keeps telling Token he understands and Token keeps getting mad, at the end Stan has to admit he doesn't understand. I don't understand what it's like to be black but it makes sense to me that they would take that word and make theirs and theirs alone. I think that's the way it should be. I think every white person admitting that it's okay to let them have it would be a much larger step in race relations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 16:20:41 GMT -5
I've never even attempted to defend foxnews. I don't see why I have to pick a dog here. I think they were both being dicks. I've admitted from the beginning I think Nader Nader had larger message that was being ignored specifically because of the words he choose which is exactly why he shouldn't have said it. Now this I can totally get behind - - yeah they were each dicks in their own way. My thing is, Nader's dickness is defensible, while Smith's dickness is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 7, 2008 16:34:55 GMT -5
No, Thorn I get it, when you can say something that would normally be consider racist and it isn't considered racist anymore is a great thing and maybe this is the beginning of Nader's crusade to take "uncle tom" back maybe I'm just to cynical about politicians to see it that way. However uncle tom is without question considered racist even if Nader says it isn't. I hear it a lot but white people insisting they should be able to call black people niggah's does nothing what so ever to help race relations. As far as I'm concerned they can have it, I don't want to call my black friends niggah. Have you seen that episode of South Park where Stan keeps telling Token he understands and Token keeps getting mad, at the end Stan has to admit he doesn't understand. I don't understand what it's like to be black but it makes sense to me that they would take that word and make theirs and theirs alone. I think that's the way it should be. I think every white person admitting that it's okay to let them have it would be a much larger step in race relations. I think I did see that episode, once. I was probably too stoned at the time to recall much of it, now. Yeah, I hear you too on that last count, about letting them use the term which - correct me if I'm wrong - -but wasn't it white folks in general who invented the term? To be specifically derogatory and clearly, racist? But then blacks started usin' it among themselves ironically, as in, with a wink & a nod to each other -? As in, to soften the impact of actually being degraded by the typical use of that term when it came out of a racist white man's mouth? Still, I see what you're saying. I agree. Also, I happen to think that racism itself has little or nothing to do with anything anyone says, and has nothing to do with such terminology - - such terminology is nothing but an *indicator*, a red flag if you will, that the person using it is racist. There can be exceptions. (Nader's use of Uncle Tom being the point in case.) But generally - YES - - the use of the term Uncle Tom would today, typically, be more than likely, an indicator of racism. But to get to my point - - what racism IS - is a state of mind, a mentality. A mentality which invents words like n*gger. Harriett Beecher Stowe, apparantly, never intended the term "Uncle Tom" to be anything but a character, and decidedly not a racist character (or so I assume). But yes -- the term by degrees changed meaning until now, its obviously close enough to that thin line where, we may as well push it over into the edge to join "n*gger" as being clearly racist, I guess. So hopefully Nader is learning a lesson -- that whatever you want to say - -DON'T USE THAT TERM, PERIOD. We're never going to make much headway into abolishing racist attitudes if we don't look past the surface use of such terms. Hell, for all we know, racism cannot be abolished, period. It has been part of the human condition since god knows when - - should it necessarily change? One can hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 7, 2008 16:59:35 GMT -5
In my mind there's two kinds of racism, passive and active. Neo-nazis and the Klan are clearly active racism. It's an open hate that they put a name to. It's easy to spot. Passive racism is much more common and harder to identify sometimes. Passive racism is product of societal surroundings and usually not meant to be racist at all but it's still racism. I think Nader, like my grandmother, is passively racist. As are many people of a certain generation. There's no malice intended only a lack of understanding or stubbornness to changing world view. This second type the kind we can and should (and I believe are) overcome. I've learned a lot about race relations during Obama's run and one the most interesting things how many people who would never in million years all by them selves in the dark in front of mirror would consider themselves even slightly racist do in fact hold some minor prejudices. People have trouble admitting racist leanings within themselves, even when they are generally innocent leanings. This, in my opinon, is where truely fighting racism takes place. Not going on TV and insisting that all things are equal. Racial equality doesn't and shouldn't mean all things are equal. The nature of the struggle is catch 22 in a way, for instance both insisting that white people should be able to say nigger and all white people giving up the word altogether are both basically racist. The fix is actually the opposite of insisting that all things are anything, rather learning to live together on an individual basis. Racism isn't just in the delivery in it's also how it's received. It will also never go away. Which I guess is a long way to go to say that Nader may not have been intentionally racist but he was unquestionably being exploitative of race and is that really any better?
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 9, 2008 1:05:28 GMT -5
the chicago way...
Emanuel pick shows change is state of mind
John Kass
November 7, 2008
It took only 36 hours for President-elect Barack Obama to take the off ramp from the Change We Can Believe In Highway and slam his foot on the gas in the express lanes of the Chicago Way.
Because with his first official act, Obama selected a Chicago Daley machine guy for his chief of staff, U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Tomczak).
So much for transcending politics as we know it, eh?
"I announce this appointment first because the chief of staff is central to the ability of a president and administration to accomplish an agenda," Obama said in a news release. "And no one I know is better at getting things done than Rahm Emanuel."
Among Chicago politicians, the Emanuel announcement was treated with enthusiasm. But it was enthusiasm of the political salivary gland at the prospect of federal pork and leverage.
"It's a gain," said Mayor Richard Daley, speculating on all the contracts he would be able to give with new federal money. "It's a real gain, gain, gain," he said, repeating the word as if in prayer.
Chicago may have a history of corruption, but our politicians are realists. They're not fools. And Emanuel, though he has many critics, is no fool.
From Washington, however, you could hear that giant sucking sound as the Washington media praised Emanuel, as if the appointment was testament to change. There was so much sucking up, they may have created an El Niño effect that will plague our planet for years.
Some of the sucking up is understandable because their currency is access and, as chief of staff, Emanuel will be gatekeeper to the president. But the least they could have done was rate themselves NC-17. And they could have acknowledged what they were doing, which was praising him to their readers and viewers in hopes of maintaining or guaranteeing that access.
Washington media types talk about him as a Clinton guy, but Emanuel is really a Chicago City Hall guy. At City Hall, the unwritten rule is we don't want nobody nobody sent. The guy who sent Emanuel to then-candidate Bill Clinton in 1991 is named Daley. Bill Daley, the mayor's brother.
Loyal readers know why I put the (D-Tomczak) at the end of Emanuel's name. It refers to the corrupt Daley administration Water Department boss, Donald Tomczak, now in federal prison in Duluth, Minn. He sits there because he was convicted of bribery. Emanuel didn't have anything to do with that. But he was a political beneficiary of Tomczak and the Chicago Way.
Two years ago, at the federal trial of Mayor Daley's patronage chiefs—who were eventually convicted for building an illegal political army of city patronage workers to maintain the mayor's control on Chicago—Tomczak was a key witness.
And he testified that he was ordered to put his political regiments on the streets in 2002 to elect Emanuel and defeat a liberal Democratic grass-roots candidate. The mayor put hundreds of political hacks on the city payroll stumping for Emanuel back then. Tomczak controlled them. They were afraid not to work the precincts. It was the only way for them to get promotions.
Emanuel was elected. So if there wasn't a Tomczak, putting the army out for Emanuel, then Emanuel wouldn't have been in Congress. Emanuel really can't stand it when I mention Tomczak, and he has told me so, personally. He's entitled.
"You're right," he said in a newsroom confrontation a few years ago. "You keep mentioning him in connection with me in your column. That bothers me because I'm more than that."
I agree. He's an able political infighter, and if you were in a fight, you'd probably want Emanuel with you. He's smart and ruthless, and he knows politics. Perhaps that's why Obama chose him. But it's not reform.
The 5th District will now need a new congressman. That decision will be made by another Emanuel ally who never gets the proper credit from the Washington media:
The prince of Rush Street and Aruba, state Sen. James DeLeo (D-How You Doin?).
DeLeo is the Democratic state central committeeman of Emanuel's district. He has known Obama and Emanuel for years. He's also been quite busy lately, worried about reports that the FBI is interested in his activities, from leasing luxury cars like Bentleys and Jaguars, to billboard companies, and his longtime relationship with newly indicted Republican power broker William Cellini.
But I called his office anyway, to ask whom he would choose to succeed Emanuel in the U.S. House and whether he'll consult the new White House chief of staff on a replacement.
"He's not available," said his secretary.
Is Jimmy in Aruba at the casino?
"No," she said.
Is he on vacation, getting a suntan?
"No," she said. "He's in town. I'll take a message."
I'm still waiting for the call.
But as I wait, I imagine DeLeo driving a convertible, top down, sun on his face, talking on a cell phone with Emanuel about Obama, cruising along that Change We Can Believe In Highway.
jskass@tribune.com
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 9, 2008 1:13:46 GMT -5
pre election, but his 'trough' is precise.
Power in hands of few replaces liberty for all
John Kass
October 26, 2008
On those nights when they were young, they smoked pot in the streets and listened to Dylan in the car and dreamed of the risks they'd take.
But now, as Baby Boomers grow old, they welcome those police surveillance cameras on the light poles outside their homes, thinking the cameras make them safe. And they rush toward the warm embrace of big government and promised security.
What happened?
I suppose it's partly a function of age and the caution that comes with it. You see this on the highway. The kid keeps his foot on the gas through the turns. He can't imagine himself as the geezer in the next lane, riding the brakes even when the road runs straight. But age happens, and with it comes uncertainty.
Politically, the needs of the Boomers will be met, as they always have been, given the large numbers that allow Boomers to polish the lens through which America sees itself. In the '70s, the slogan was "Do your own thing." But today's slogan might be "Washington, please save us."
Fear happens. The 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, and the federal government—always eager to extend its reach—built its massive security bureaucracy, down to those spy cameras installed on the streetlights of so many cities and towns, thrilling America's mayors and the police chiefs. We're told the cameras keep us safe. We've become used to the eyes.
And when the economic crisis happened—when the credit bubble burst and the excesses of Wall Street caught up with us, and so many people lost their jobs and their retirement savings got whacked, and they started losing their homes—naturally people became fearful.
When you're worried about your family, you're not interested in the history of blame. You're interested in keeping a roof over their heads. You're interested in solutions. The solution so many want these days is more government.
Some of that is a proper demand for reasonable regulations on the markets and on lending that were eased during the Clinton years and continued. But today's crisis has also led to the massive federal bailout of the financial industry, with Washington picking who wins and who loses. We're told that this arrangement is only temporary. But partnerships involving almost a trillion dollars that grant even greater leverage to Washington have a way of becoming quite terribly permanent.
So the leviathan grows, and the bureaucrats and the corporate types attached to this bailout deal see the world in strikingly similar terms. They share the same type of mind and they share the common purpose of maintaining the status quo. Why wouldn't they? They're on the inside.
The casualty will be the entrepreneurs, those on the outside, the ones who createthe spark and offer up the products or the ideas that fire the economy. The entrepreneurial mind isn't willing to settle and wants to make more than $250,000 in salary or whatever the federal government deems proper. They don't want proper. What they want is to take risks and reach the American Dream.
Such men and women will be on the outside for decades now. When they get close to victory they'll get whacked with tax increases and the rug will be pulled out from under them. The rich will have their wealth. But new entrepreneurs will be hamstrung and without that creative spark, no government-administered economic system can survive. History has taught us this over and over again.
The bailout happened so quickly we haven't fully considered the effects. Will we recognize America 40 years from now? How long before we understand how fundamentally America has changed? What kind of generational conflicts will this new government market policy instigate? Will our children speak of liberty, as we once did before we forgot?
These days, liberty isn't in vogue. It's so, so olde. We forget to consider liberty as America's founders conceived it—as one of the rights given us by God. Liberty was something an entrepreneur could understand. But even before this economic crisis Americans were given a new word from the corporatist/bureaucrat dictionary: empowerment.
"Empowerment" kinda, sorta evokes liberty but not really, since "empowerment" is something a government confers upon its people (or its serfs) when government decides the serfs (people) are ready.
While writing this I received one of those chain e-mails, but this one wasn't about a politician or the widow of the Nigerian oil minister. It was about how to catch wild pigs. I don't know if you could actually catch wild pigs this way, but it really doesn't matter. In this method, you throw bucketfuls of corn on the forest floor. The pigs eat the corn. A month later you put up one side of a fence and more corn. Eventually, the pigs return, get used to the fence and keep eating. And another side of fence and more corn and so on, until you close the gate and you've caught the pigs. They've lost their freedom. They can't figure out what's happened.
We're not pigs, we're Americans, rightfully worried about the economic future. But the times are changing, and the Boomers should consider the costs and consequences of what they're being offered by our politicians before the last side of the fence goes up.
jskass@tribune.com
|
|
