From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #550 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, March 25 2008 Volume 16 : Number 550 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: you are making my point [Rex ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [2fs ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster ["(0% rh)" ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [2fs ] Re: you are making my point ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: "Extremely Successful" [The Great Quail ] Your racist friend [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:38:30 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views > > lip-service; they don't deserve it. > > > > They may or may not be assholes - but they are citizens. What you might > privately think, or say about people among your friends, isn't the same > thing you say *to* them when you're trying to not have them act out their > idiocies publicly. > It's true, I sometimes forget just how coveted the asshole-American voting bloc is. I'm only partly kidding-- I really do not like those reverse-racism-claiming whiteys. In my experience there's a very large crossover between those folks and the straight-up racists (the suckers are simple and plain), and I wouldn't condescend to court their votes if I were Obama (who's not likely to snare the vote of a purebred bigot to begin with). But I'm sure Hillary or McCain will gladly take their ballots, so I can see why he gives some credence to 'em. I guess. Sort of. > > Point is, working-class whites *have* been screwed, even if their notions > of who's screwing them might be false. > Very false, I'd argue, and I'd rather BO had gone ahead and told them that. It may even be slightly damaging, culturally, for them to hear an African-American leader of Obama's stature lend any kind of credibility to the idea (he did put caveats on it, the bits I labeled as "excuses:, albeit pretty deep into the fine print). But I guess the bottom line here is that it's not me he's trying to sway. And I think white resentment is a huge problem, and not just regarding race. > I'd go so far as to say that it's a chief underpinning of the whole current, > nasty version of conservatism - resentment against supposed "others" who > question the way they used to do things. > This and your subsequent remarks regarding the Right, family values crapola and the Bushies are all very valid; I approached the speech assuming Obama wasn't reaching out that far. I assume his swing voters may include some cranky white voters, but not that many outright rednecks and only the most moderate of Republicans. ICBW. I know that part of the point of the speech was to demonstrate the > > complexity of the issue (did someone not know that?), > > > Any thinking person knows it - but unfortunately, it's exceedingly rare > for a politician to acknowledge that, and to give people credit for the > ability to think complexly. > Are you saying, as you seem to be, that Obama was also failing give vote that credit, because he believed it needed explaining? It sounds (in context) like you're saying he is that rare politician that does give his listeners such credit, but the fact that he did the explaining seems to contradict that. Or maybe I've gotten turned around ass-backwards myself. It seems to me that one could be of one of three minds about race relations in America: (1) they're complex (that is, you're a thinking person who's already considered much of Obama's subject) (2) you haven't given them much thought (that is, you're an unthinking person, perhaps still a valuable swing voter but quite possibly incapable of understanding Obama's speech), or (3) you think they're really simple (that is, you're a racist and already far beyond the reach of the speech). So I remain uncertain at whom this was directed, besides the fawning media and the already-faithful. > > First: does a politician's speech always have to *advocate* some > particular thing? That's a good question. These kinds of speeches-- including Obama's other two following the race speech-- are made for a pretty limited number of reasons. Usually it's to explain what the candidate's proposed policies are going to be, which was not the case here. It might also be to explain a new issue or impart some new information, which also was not the case here, unless you were an open-minded person who has generally been a "non-thinker". Or maybe it's just to outline a candidate's position on an issue. That's the closest match to this speech, but it's not an exact match: "it's complex" isn't really a position, nor is "we need to confront this". So this seems to me to be a fourth kind of speech-- the "Oh shit, my campaign is in trouble and I gotta say something" speech. The ratings don't lie, and it was apparently an excellent one of those. But it contained some pandering that was off-putting to leftier people like myself. As much as I feel Eddie's vibe at this very moment (which is a lot), I've said many times that I'll vote for the Democrat in November, so my reaction is purely academic; it's idiots closer to the middle who are really getting all het up and threatening to vote for McCain over their unfavored Democratic candidate about whom we need to worry. I mean, seriously, have you ever actually read the reader comments following the stories about the campaign on the mainstream news sites? Neither of the Democrats have any lack of kneejerk extremist spiteful supporters, few of whom, apparently, are capable of expressing coherent thought in writing. I mean, damn. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:37:55 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: you are making my point Michael Wells wrote: >Lifeson is God. Dude, I'm no Rush fan, but...I would believe your statement long before I would buy that God's son is life... Michael "Can be blasphemous even in puns" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ How well do you know your celebrity gossip? http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:21:39 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: you are making my point On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > Michael Wells wrote: > > > >Lifeson is God. > > Dude, I'm no Rush fan, but...I would believe your statement long before I > would buy that God's son is life... > I though the power trio that had God in it was Cream. Wrong again... - -Rex "Lifeson is actually God's godson" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:30:12 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On 3/24/08, Rex wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > > Point is, working-class whites *have* been screwed, even if their > > notions of who's screwing them might be false. > > > > Very false, I'd argue, and I'd rather BO had gone ahead and told them > that. It may even be slightly damaging, culturally, for them to hear an > African-American leader of Obama's stature lend any kind of credibility to > the idea (he did put caveats on it, the bits I labeled as "excuses:, albeit > pretty deep into the fine print). But I guess the bottom line here is that > it's not me he's trying to sway. > I think anyone (and I'm not saying *you're* doing this) who looks at Obama's speech and reads it as okaying whitey blaming the blacks for whitey's problems is about as correct as the folks looking at The White Album and blaming the Beatles for Charlie Manson. That is, you can't be responsible for what idiots do with your words. Obama clearly said no, this is not why poor whites are being screwed. What really would have been impressive is if he'd said, and upon further thought I've realized that my votes with the banking industry on bankruptcy, etc., have been misguided, well...that's not likely to happen is it. And I think white resentment is a huge problem, and not just regarding race. > > I'd go so far as to say that it's a chief underpinning of the whole current, > > nasty version of conservatism - resentment against supposed "others" who > > question the way they used to do things. > > > > This and your subsequent remarks regarding the Right, family values > crapola and the Bushies are all very valid; I approached the speech assuming > Obama wasn't reaching out that far. I assume his swing voters may include > some cranky white voters, but not that many outright rednecks and only the > most moderate of Republicans. ICBW. > "In Charleston bugs wobble"? Anyway: someone in Obama's position is always speaking to everyone - not just to his presumed audience (i.e., potential voters), simply because the margins of who is and is not a potential voter are fuzzy, and you don't want people on the outer edges of those margins talking with their definitely-out friends and getting the impression that Obama Hates Us. In other words, it's very, very difficult to directly criticize a voting bloc as such...even Asshole-Americans (who are, of course, one of the most populous groups of Americans). I know that part of the point of the speech was to demonstrate the > > > complexity of the issue (did someone not know that?), > > > > > > Any thinking person knows it - but unfortunately, it's exceedingly rare > > for a politician to acknowledge that, and to give people credit for the > > ability to think complexly. > > > > Are you saying, as you seem to be, that Obama was also failing give vote > that credit, because he believed it needed explaining? It sounds (in > context) like you're saying he is that rare politician that does give his > listeners such credit, but the fact that he did the explaining seems to > contradict that. Or maybe I've gotten turned around ass-backwards myself. > He didn't reduce his message to soundbites, nor did he (in my judgment) pander to any particular group of voters. I mean, he certainly explained things more than he would have if he'd said, oh, "Lions and tigers eat the same bits as each other" and left it at that...but he's a politician, not (Doonesbury notwithstanding) a poet. It seems to me that one could be of one of three minds about race relations > in America: > > (1) they're complex (that is, you're a thinking person who's already > considered much of Obama's subject) > (2) you haven't given them much thought (that is, you're an unthinking > person, perhaps still a valuable swing voter but quite possibly incapable of > understanding Obama's speech), or > (3) you think they're really simple (that is, you're a racist and already > far beyond the reach of the speech). > > So I remain uncertain at whom this was directed, besides the fawning media > and the already-faithful. > I think group 2 is less thoughtless than you describe, and more numerous. And I think there are plenty of thinking people who either aren't Obama supporters or, even if they are, hadn't heard him *express* those views (even if they're their own). I mean, I'm not sure what you're saying: since some "thinking persons" would have already come to the same conclusions Obama did re race, it doesn't matter if Obama actually says them or not? There are many things we all know but that don't get said - merely saying them is, sometimes, important. It's analogous to coming out: sure, sometimes no one at all is surprised when a particular person comes out (like, say, Michael Stipe, for the twelfth time in the last decade) but it still means something that the person is doing so. First: does a politician's speech always have to *advocate* some particular > > thing? > > > That's a good question. ... So this seems to me to be a fourth kind of > speech-- the "Oh shit, my campaign is in trouble and I gotta say something" > speech. The ratings don't lie, and it was apparently an excellent one of > those. But it contained some pandering that was off-putting to leftier > people like myself. > And sometimes a politician needs to make those fourth kinds of speeches. I'm still not sure which parts you thought were "pandering," actually. As much as I feel Eddie's vibe at this very moment (which is a lot), > Eddie's passion is admirable. And his positions are clear. But at this point, his absolutism leaves him almost no chance that any politician, except perhaps at the local level, will ever come close to satisfying his standards. That's less a flaw with Eddie than with our political system...but I'm just saying, we're unlikely to be able to vote for "fuck all that" anytime soon. Back to the "pandering" thing: the art of politics, anywhere, any time, under any political system that allows for diversity of opinion, is finding ways to say and do things that further one set of interests over another while not utterly alienating everyone who isn't dead-center in the middle of that set of interests. That might be pandering - but no politician - anywhere, any time, under any political system that allows for diversity of opinion - will get very far if his or her response to things disagreed with is "fuck that." To me, such statecraft, diplomacy, etc. slides into pandering only when it's utterly hypocritical, insincere, or disingenuous. Underline "utterly"...because obviously, any sort of diplomacy involves a degree of these qualities. "Do these pants make me look fat?" "No - you're fat no matter what you wear" might be true, but really isn't an advisable response. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:48:56 -0400 From: "(0% rh)" Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster jeff 2fs says: > > But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views > > lip-service; they don't deserve it. > > > > They may or may not be assholes - but they are citizens. What you might > privately think, or say about people among your friends, isn't the same > thing you say *to* them when you're trying to not have them act out their > idiocies publicly. > > This might be something I've learned as a teacher. Some of my students are > dopes, some are lazy, some are immature, some are assholes, some are > headcases. But I still have to teach them, as best I can - and whatever I > might say about them in conversation with other teachers (which is that > they're dopes, lazy, immature, etc.) - saying that to their faces wouldn't > help a damned thing and would, in fact, make it much worse. > > In other words, Obama isn't just preaching to the choir, or running for > President of the Good People of America. > > Besides which, they're not all assholes, etc. The person who doesn't get a > job, when a black person (who's equally qualified) does get it, that person > still doesn't have a job. And the reason he doesn't have a job isn't his > fault. (It isn't the black person's fault, either - and, I would argue, it's > not Affirmative Action's fault either. It may be no one's fault - there > simply aren't enough jobs for everyone, so you hire the person who will best > benefit the firm collectively, which might be an African-American because > you recognize that in the past, your firm might have preferentially hired > whites, and there's a measurable economic advantage to having a diverse > workplace. It might be the fault of the economic system as a whole, creating > artificial scarcities. > > Point is, working-class whites *have* been screwed, even if their notions of > who's screwing them might be false. IMO, jeff 2fs really gets to the heart of the matter on this. the thing is, once i'm done dismissing the x% of americans who are assholes (which, believe me, doesn't take long), those "assholes" are still pissed off, they're still my neighbors, they still vote, and they're still people. i can dismiss them, and be done with it, but really, what the hell is being "done with it"? i've inflicted my opinion upon them. big whoop. i guess i can walk away, and feel okay about myself for having *once again* correctly judged another asshole. that, and $1 will get me a cup of coffee. sometimes i think about how easy it is to judge other people. hell, i can't even get along with my friends. okay, i'm exaggerating on that one, but the point is that i actually do get along with my friends, and my family, because i really believe that that they are more than some particular bad attitude they may have. i don't know anyone who doesn't have faults. i don't know anyone who hasn't judged other unfairly. i used to work with this guy d. - wonderful, loyal guy with many great qualities, and one day i was pretty shocked to find that he held some views on race that i really had a problem with. i guess if there were some giant pot of perfect people whom i could befriend, and work with, and agree with, i could just say, well, d., that's *not* okay with me -- see you later. and i guess the thing is that there's millions of people out there, and it's easy to reduce them to one or two catch-phrases or points of view. and i think that's happened between people more and more over the past 10 or 15 years -- there's the smokers, the republicans, the SUV owners, the people who don't know the difference between mathematics and arithmetic... anyway, once you've identified the assholes, you can be finished with it. or maybe you're only halfway there -- they aren't going anywhere, and they're probably not changing their minds anytime soon (i mean, they *are* assholes, aren't they?), so maybe it's best to get along, maybe confront their attitudes -- but, as my Dad always taught me: remember that assholes are people, too. xo - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:18:23 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: you are making my point On Mar 24, 2008, at 7:50 PM, michael wells wrote: > I thought a long time about > whether to plump for tickets to the current Rush tour (I decided > against, > for the time being, which is the first time in like 25 years that's > happened), and I figured if it required that much effort then the > magic > really wasn't happening anymore. I don't want to go just for the > sake of > going, but I do feel the tug of familiarity and worship. Axe > worship, that > is. Lifeson is God. If you don't go, might you be considered an Axe Victim? (After all, the new album is pretty good). - - Steve __________ I can't resist an anime that includes a small, cute, violence prone girl with a scythe. - John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:32:55 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On 3/24/08, (0% rh) wrote: > > jthe people who don't know the difference between > mathematics and arithmetic... Ooh, ooh, I know this one: "arithmetic" doesn't have an s on the end, while "mathematics" does. There are several other similar differences, but now that I've given you all the heads-up, I'll bet you can spot them for yourselves. (Latter not to be confused with "arrhythmetric," which describes the Shaggs' drummer.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:09:40 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: you are making my point > If you don't go, might you be considered an Axe Victim? (After all, > the new album is pretty good). > So we got some Be-Bop Deluxe fans up in here? About time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:23:21 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:30 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 3/24/08, Rex wrote: > > > > > I think anyone (and I'm not saying *you're* doing this) who looks at > Obama's speech and reads it as okaying whitey blaming the blacks for > whitey's problems is about as correct as the folks looking at The White > Album and blaming the Beatles for Charlie Manson. > I guess. Inasmuch as it's in the eye of the beholder, I behold any countenancing of whitey (this particular flavor of whitey, any way) to be too much. In this, I would be as pissed off at any politician as I am at Obama. It's just a real trigger issue for me. some cranky white voters, but not that many outright rednecks and only the > > most moderate of Republicans. ICBW. > > > > "In Charleston bugs wobble"? > Sometimes I just come to an overused phrase like "I could be wrong" and decide it should be lollified. In retrospect, those particular letters could also stand for "it could be worse". Or something like that. OR: I was really trying to write "ICBM" but for some reason turned the paper upside down for the last letter. > > > Anyway: someone in Obama's position is always speaking to everyone - not > just to his presumed audience (i.e., potential voters), simply because the > margins of who is and is not a potential voter are fuzzy, > This is surprisingly easy for me to forget, since I've been part of the "base" that's been "taken for granted" so many times (which reminds me of why I really don't want Al Gore after all), and I've never been even moderately enticed by any type of right winger (that is, no matter how many times John McCain calls me one of his frenz, I am not his friend, and he should know that). Swing voters are odd and unknowable chimera to me. > > I think group 2 is less thoughtless than you describe, and more numerous. > And I think there are plenty of thinking people who either aren't Obama > supporters or, even if they are, hadn't heard him *express* those views > (even if they're their own). I mean, I'm not sure what you're saying: since > some "thinking persons" would have already come to the same conclusions > Obama did re race, it doesn't matter if Obama actually says them or not? > There are many things we all know but that don't get said - merely saying > them is, sometimes, important. > Which is I guess what makes the speech itself a cultural milestone whether or not one agrees with it. I can't argue with that, having read it in many a gism-encrusted blog. It still strikes me as the Chewbacca Defense. > . I'm still not sure which parts you thought were "pandering," actually. > Making the speech at all was pandering point one, as the man had nothing to apologize for. Lending credence to whitey to hedge his bets is the second most bothersome one. There was pandering to the "black church" as well-- I don't think he should have distanced himself from his pastor at all, but if he was going to do so, why do such a half-ass job of it? I guess he didn't inhale after all. We've probably done all the revisiting of the specific text anyone wants to, but there was more. Back to the "pandering" thing: the art of politics, anywhere, any time, > under any political system that allows for diversity of opinion, is finding > ways to say and do things that further one set of interests over another > while not utterly alienating everyone who isn't dead-center in the middle of > that set of interests. > But he was the Chosen One! Really, it's the Cure Fan/Deadhead problem for me again. The story has changed from the guy being "beyond politics" to being "really good at politics", with the same starry-eyed devotees praising him for contradictory strengths. Perhaps he is the best of the bunch, but for god's sake stop dressing like Robert Smith, people! It's just a band! Sadly, I really just wish Hillary would do something heinous pronto, so I can stop being upset by this. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:55:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster Rex wrote: > 2fs wrote: > I've never been even moderately enticed by any type of right > winger (that is, no matter how many > times John McCain calls me one of his frenz, I am not his friend, > and he should know that). But do Tim and/or Neil? Liam? > Really, it's the Cure Fan/Deadhead problem for me again. The story > has changed from the guy being "beyond politics" to being "really > good at politics", with the same starry-eyed devotees praising him > for contradictory strengths. Perhaps he is the best of the bunch, > but for god's sake stop dressing like Robert Smith, people! It's > just a band! But most of the audience isn't dressed like him, or a solid chunk that is only dresses like him when they go to shows. And even then, for many it's just because Robert's hair is much easier to ape than Mac's. The story hasn't really changed for most of his supporters, just the 20 year olds. Of course, you're completely correct about the Dead, though I do give them credit for being fairly benevolent when finding themselves leading a large cult. Demerits for attracting Ann Coulter though. (More seriously, for a lot of the Obama is the new Christ crowd, it's more akin to the first decent guy boyfriend after dating a viciously and criminally abusive turd -- that he's not a fucking sociopath is so astonishing to you that you ending mistaking him for a god. Clinton can't tap into this since she was cowardly* enough to vote for the war in the first place and refuses to truly disavow that vote. *Unless, of course, she was just stupid enough to believe Bush, etc. And she just isn't that stupid.) > Sadly, I really just wish Hillary would do something heinous > pronto, so I can stop being upset by this. Carville calling Richardson "Judas" not quite it, eh? "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, (0% rh) wrote: > anyway, once you've identified the assholes, you can be finished with > it. or maybe you're only halfway there -- they aren't going anywhere, > and they're probably not changing their minds anytime soon (i mean, > they *are* assholes, aren't they?), so maybe it's best to get along, > maybe confront their attitudes -- but, as my Dad always taught me: > remember that assholes are people, too. or maybe *they're* the people and *you're* the assholes ;) (not you, lauren) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:37:26 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: you are making my point On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:09 AM, kevin studyvin wrote: > So we got some Be-Bop Deluxe fans up in here? About time. More of a Bill Nelson fan, as I came in with Red Noise. I've ended up with over 700 tracks by Bill on my iPod, not including all the of BBD stuff. - - Steve _______________ Interconnectedness among living beings can be accounted for by nonlocal quantum entanglement. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:43:52 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: "Extremely Successful" >>> fuck obama. fuck hillary. fuck the democrats twenty-five ways from >>> sunday. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them to hell. and then fuck them >>> some more. the fucking shithole pieces of fuck. I'll fuck Hillary! - --Quail PS: But I am staying far away from McGreevey's chauffeur. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:36:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Your racist friend > But these people are assholes, Barack! Don't give these kinds of views > lip-service; they don't deserve it. That's one of the oldest fallacies in the book -- "Do not mention a belief, it will then be diminished." Where I come from, there are many whites who harbor these uneasy feelings. And for some of them, they were pleasantly surprised that Obama addressed those issues. It's part of his thesis, which is to say, "Let's have an adult conversation about this." Simply denying that the other side has any concerns, legitimate or not, is not an intelligent or effective way to communicate, heal, negotiate, or any other verbs of that nature. > Well, hell yeah, I couldn't agree with that any more strongly! Those are > the real bad guys, and we shouldn't be distracted by... wait, what are we > going to do about entitlement-y white jackasses again? So I suppose you are disappointed that within the confines of a half-hour speech on racism, he then didn't launch into another half-hour speech on economics, and then onto a discussion about corporations, and so on? I accept your disappointment, and I understand you'd like him to be more radical, but it's unfair to think that such deep-seated problems can be fixed by a single speech. >> And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to >> label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are >> grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and >> blocks the path to understanding. > > > Wait, are they grounded in legitimate concerns? Why are we making excuses > for these guys? Yes, they are. Having a political reaction against affirmative action is a legitimate concern, particularly if it's directly affected you. And I think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that the majority of white people -- dare I say the "typical" white person? -- feel uncomfortable being approached by a young black man alone at night after just visiting an ATM, particularly if that young black man is wearing a hoodie. Is that gut-level racism, a natural reaction to the realities of crime, an overreaction predicated on media images of muggers, or all of the above? Whichever the case, it's not useful to simply label it as "illegitimate," write off the white person as a racist, and move on. > He ran up against the same kinds of contradictions on how level (or not) the > playing field has gotten: he says Rev. Wright doesn't recognize that things > *have* changed, but elsewhere notes that the schools and services in many > black neighborhoods still suck, so isn't some of the Reverend's anger > justified? Is it sorta-better, or still bad but not-anger-worthy, or what? I think he definitely said that some of his anger is justified. But there's a lot in there that's also an over-reaction, too. It's hard to reduce the complexities of a public thinker and speaker's 20+ year career down to a simple speech. But it's even more egregious to reduce them to sound-bytes, as we've seen on the media. > I know that part of the point of the speech was to demonstrate the > complexity of the issue (did someone not know that?), The question is not whether or not we "know that." The point is to have a major political figure -- our potential next president! -- re-define political reality by introducing certain concepts and modes of thinking into the political mainstream. This is what many Democrats have been waiting for -- A candidate with a narrative, a vision; something more than simply a set of defensive reactions against the Republicans. He is not perfect by any means, but he is a damn sight better than anyone else up for the job. >and it did possess an > unprecedented frankness... but I'm at a loss as to what was being advocated > in the end, and I felt a wound or two being unnecessarily reopened along the > way-- wounds in some cases I had never felt before, in some cases. That doesn't make sense to me, sorry. Unless you really are in agreement with Bill Kristol and Rush Limbaugh? Which I find hard to believe, so I may be misunderstanding you. As far as I can tell, your position seems to be this: If Obama were a genuine and authentic candidate, he would have stood by his pastor's words about "God damn America," because the only people such words really offend are racist idiots, and to appeal to the majority of America -- who are racist idiots -- is to pander, and therefore undermine Obama's authenticity. And besides, for a white liberal like me, it makes me cringe because it suggests that other white liberals like me are not racist at all, and calling attention to our brothers and sisters who may be racist only justifies them and opens wounds that we non-racist types do not have, but nevertheless feel. And besides, if he was going to talk about racisms, he should have fixed the problem as well. ? > Al Gore? Please? He had his chance, but he passed it by. I love Al Gore -- or at least the "new" Al Gore -- but he's made it clear that he doesn't want to be President right now. Which sucks, because a Gore/Obama ticket might have been unbeatable. - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #550 ********************************