From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #551 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 551 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Your racist friend [The Great Quail ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Michael Sweeney ] Re: Your racist grandma [Rex ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:45:19 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > > 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? > Naw, the surrogate shit is just plain weak on both sides. And whatever with the blue dress thing, and Sinbad. Action, people! Lotsa dead air before PA. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:07:37 +0000 From: Rob Subject: A man with a lightbulb head It looks like they're about to redesign the website so this might go soon, but the UK Patent office have a good Hitchcockesque image on the patents page. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent.htm Rob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:03:31 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster Rex wrote: >Swing voters are odd and unknowable chimera to me. ...I hear ya, bruddah. I can see someone left of centerish going (before she went into scorched-earth mode) "Hillary? Barack? (Whither Edwards?)" Or a rightish person not being sure (depending upon their level of goddishness) whether to support McCain or Huckabee (however, supporters of the Mormon Haircut were frickin' aliens)... But -- how in the name of Cthulhu can someone go down to the final week of October 2000, thinking, "Hmm -- Bush..or Gore?...such a tough decision." Or, on Nov. 1, 2004, say, "Well, Kerry's got some good ideas, but Bush is our war leader and...well, I haven't decided yet..." WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? As unaligned with the right/GOP as I am, at least I can understand those people who might say, "No matter what, I can't support Kerry (or Gore or BO/HRC)" (i.e. they are the mirror-image of me)...But it's those who apparently can't / won't decide...and, more importantly, have so little grasp of the issues and personalities involved that confuse me. ...Well, no, wait -- they AREN'T that confusing...they are the Asshole-Americans that Jeff and Lauren so eloquently spoke of...As Bobby D. once said, they're idiots, babe -- it's a wonder that they still know how to breathe... Michael "OK -- maybe not exactly an IQ test to vote...burt how 'bout a civics / current events exam?" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_ realtime_042008 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:00:50 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: you are making my point - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Steve Schiavo Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:37 AM To: kevin studyvin Cc: fegmaniax@smoe.org 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. Steve came back with: >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. Bill Nelson sure has a talent for coming up with great album titles! Quit Dreaming And Get On The Beam Savage Gestures For Charm's Sake The Two-Fold Aspect Of Everything Electricity Made Us Angles The Summer Of God's Piano Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:16:50 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > But -- how in the name of Cthulhu can someone go down to the final week of > October 2000, thinking, "Hmm -- Bush..or Gore?...such a tough decision." > Or, on Nov. 1, 2004, say, "Well, Kerry's got some good ideas, but Bush is > our war leader and...well, I haven't decided yet..." WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? > > I used to know the answer to this one-- they *were* my parents, registered independents who voted for the winner in every presidential race ever. But that ended as the religious right became too shrill, and they've voted for Democrats from Gore onwards (they are passionately anti-war; it's their neighbors' kids getting killed and damaged over there). So now I really don't know. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:17:55 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Your racist grandma On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:36 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > > 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. Um, me too. That's how I know they are assholes. > And for some of them, they were pleasantly > surprised that Obama addressed those issues. Swing voters for him. Good politcking. > 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? No... those he can and does talk about in other speeches, speeches which actually have policy components and do not piss me off. Thankfully, these keep coming and help me get on with feeling okay about my inevitable vote in November. > Yes, they are. Having a political reaction against affirmative action is a > legitimate concern, particularly if it's directly affected you. To me, personally, it's not legitimate; it's just short-sighted. So, once again, anyone giving any kind of credence to this stuff-- Obama, Hillary, the Dalai Lama, Rush Limbaugh, anyone-- is going to lose points with me. They don't care that much, of course, and the guy who already has my vote has the least incentive of all to care. > 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? That's easy. Take that young black man, make him white, keep the hoodie and all the other specifics (I'd imagine a certain manner of carrying himself) and see if Typical White Person is less scared. Or keep the guy black and change all the other specifics to have him dressed and behaving just like the TWP leaving the ATM. If the person is still more scared of the black guy, they might have a problem. 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 totally agree with that. None of that is Obama's fault. > 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. It was obviously received that way. But I don't think that would have happened had it not been for his perception that damage control was necessary. Obviously, it worked, but it diminished him in my eyes-- and unfortunately at a time when I was highly open to embracing his candidacy-- to just another politician. > 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. Let's not forget that barely more than half of the popular vote has gone to Obama; substantially fewer of those votes have come from ardent supporters, and an even smaller but incredibly vocal contingent constitute the "many" to whom you refer, those who feel their prayers have been answered. And that's particularly faint praise, given that his opponent, as described by you, is a fascist lunatic barely better than whatsisname with the mustache, the Godwin's Law fellow... and whose policy differences with him are minimal. > >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. Must be. Lookit, I'm just me, and I can only speak for myself, but after this speech, I feel like my story has been explained, rewritten, and I am whitey in the eyes of the world, like any non-white looking at me sees the nonexistent bitterness about my rough lot in life or whatever. Never felt that before. I've never felt the need to use those dubious conditionals "I'm no racist" or "Some of my best friends are..." before, because I thought my life and actions spoke for themselves. But now that we've started this wonderful national dialogue, I feek more beholden to explain myself. Worse still, do my friends of color think I have some kind of issue with their mode of worship? Do I have to take pains to tell them that I don't? It's fucking awkward at best. Maybe the "conversation" is necessary at a national level-- and I suspect, and am finally starting to read some supporting opinions, that the dialogue may prove more divisive than unifying out there in the geographical areas where it matters more-- but it's frankly isolating in my world. (Please note that I also blame Senator Clinton for this, as none of it would be happening if she'd heeded the will of the people sooner, and the tension in my community between supporters of the two candidates is just as much to blame for the shitty tenor of the times in my neighborhood, city, and the party of which I'm a registered (though not self-identified) member). 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. That might be a viable conclusion from the words I've used thus far, which means I've failed to refine it enough. Obama is of course a genuine and authentic candidate; he's just descended to a disingenuity in this matter that I'd not seen before. He is a politician. And that's fine, but it's an indictment of sorts of his supporters who have placed him beyond such labels, and the fact that they follow him enthusiatically in this u-turn confirms, in some measure, my fears about the personality cult-nature of his followers and means we're getting set up for a Bill Clintonian disappointment again. And no, I don't expect him to stand by his pastor's comments, which, while not problematic to me, are obvious political poison and might well bother non-racist patriots. The double standard that Obama should even have to address them enrages me more than anything else. My objections to the content of the speech are a separate issue... > > 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. White racists, and in fact racists of any kind are not my brothers and sisters. Non-racists of any ethnicity or persuasion are. My association is in no way with whites, but with like-minded people-- I mean, yes, I still love my racist grandma and identify myself as an Appalachian, because, while accidents of birth, those things shaped me-- but by choice I identify as a liberal, a Californian, a secular humanist, a father, a Robyn Hitchcock fan, etc.-- things that bind me to people who share those traits, not skin color or religion. So yes, it bugs me that I've been put in a box with other pink persons on the basis of our shared pinkness when I hadn't felt that way last week. > And besides, if he was going to talk about racisms, he > should have fixed the problem as well. "The racisms", please. No, he wasn't obliged to fix them, nice as that may have been, but I remain unclear on what the story is here. History is made by the openness of the speech, but what is the point? Why does Chewbacca live on Endor?* Obama successfully changed the story... good job... but it's the Audacity of Damage Control, and not, as far as I can see, a lot more. Or perhaps this, right here, is part of the new national conversation on race, in which case it sucks so far, no offense to the participants intended. (Maybe it's supposed to at first... I dunno.) 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. Agreed, and I'm especially glad you make a distinction about the "new" Al Gore; the one that did run for president was a pretty dicey proposition, and I'm glad he learned from it. Not glad enough to be happy he didn't become president, of course... - -Rex *I initially followed this with "Look at the monkey. Look at the funny monkey." But then I thought that in this new climate of openness and dialogue about race, such a blatant South Park reference might be misinterpreted. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:11:59 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Your racist grandma On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:36 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > > 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. Um, me too. That's how I know they are assholes. > And for some of them, they were pleasantly > surprised that Obama addressed those issues. Swing voters for him. Good politcking. > 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? No... those he can and does talk about in other speeches, speeches which actually have policy components and do not piss me off. Thankfully, these keep coming and help me get on with feeling okay about my inevitable vote in November. > Yes, they are. Having a political reaction against affirmative action is a > legitimate concern, particularly if it's directly affected you. To me, personally, it's not legitimate; it's just short-sighted. So, once again, anyone giving any kind of credence to this stuff-- Obama, Hillary, the Dalai Lama, Rush Limbaugh, anyone-- is going to lose points with me. They don't care that much, of course, and the guy who already has my vote has the least incentive of all to care. > 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? That's easy. Take that young black man, make him white, keep the hoodie and all the other specifics (I'd imagine a certain manner of carrying himself) and see if Typical White Person is less scared. Or keep the guy black and change all the other specifics to have him dressed and behaving just like the TWP leaving the ATM. If the TWP is still more scared of the black guy, they might have a problem. 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 totally agree with that. None of that is Obama's fault. > 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. It was obviously received that way. But I don't think that would have happened had it not been for his perception that damage control was necessary. Obviously, it worked, but it diminished him in my eyes-- and unfortunately at a time when I was highly open to embracing his candidacy-- to just another politician. And now that those concepts are in the political mainstream, what's going to happen with it? Our attention is on it, but I don't know that we have many decent tools with which to work-- any more than we did after Michael Richards, Don Imus, or any other such flashpoint. > 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. Let's not forget that barely more than half of the party's popular vote has gone to Obama; substantially fewer of those votes have come from truly ardent supporters, and an even smaller but incredibly vocal contingent constitute the "many" to whom you refer, those who feel their prayers have been answered. And that's particularly faint praise, given that his opponent, as described by you, is a fascist lunatic barely better than whatsisname with the mustache, the Godwin's Law fellow... and whose policy differences with him (Obama, not Adolph) are minimal. > >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. Must be. Lookit, I'm just me, and I can only speak for myself, but after this speech, I feel like my story has been explained, rewritten, and I am whitey in the eyes of the world, like any non-white looking at me sees the nonexistent bitterness about my rough lot in life or whatever. I've *never* felt that before. I've never felt the need to use those dubious conditionals "I'm no racist" or "Some of my best friends are..." before, because I thought my life and actions spoke for themselves. But now that we've started this wonderful national dialogue, I feel more beholden to explain myself. Worse still, do my friends of color think I have some kind of issue with their mode of worship? Do I have to take pains to tell them that I don't? It's fucking awkward at best. Maybe the "conversation" is necessary at a national level-- and I suspect, and am finally starting to read some supporting opinions, that the dialogue may prove more divisive than unifying out there in the geographical areas where it matters more-- but it's frankly isolating in my world. (Please note that I also blame Senator Clinton for this, as none of it would be happening if she'd heeded the will of the people sooner, and the tension in my community between supporters of the two candidates is just as much to blame for the shitty tenor of the times in my neighborhood, city, and the party of which I'm a registered (though not self-identified) member). 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. That might be a viable conclusion from the words I've used thus far, which means I've failed to refine it enough. Obama is of course a genuine and authentic candidate; he's just descended to a disingenuity in this matter that I'd not seen before. He is a politician. And that's fine, but it's an indictment of sorts of his supporters who have placed him beyond such labels, and the fact that they follow him enthusiatically in this u-turn confirms, in some measure, my fears about the personality-cult nature of many of his followers and means we're likely getting set up for a Bill Clintonian disappointment again. And no, I don't expect him to stand by his pastor's comments, which, while not problematic to me, are obvious political poison and might well bother non-racist patriots. The double standard that Obama should even have to address them enrages me more than anything else. My objections to the content of the speech are a separate issue... > > 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. White racists, and in fact racists of any kind, are not my brothers and sisters. Non-racists of any ethnicity or persuasion are. My association is in no way with whites, but with like-minded people-- I mean, yes, I still love my racist grandma and identify myself as an Appalachian, because, while accidents of birth, those things shaped me-- but by choice I identify as a liberal, a Californian, an Angeleno, a secular humanist, a father, a Robyn Hitchcock fan, etc.-- things that bind me to people who share those traits, not skin color or religion. So yes, it bugs me that I've been put in a box with other pink persons on the basis of our shared pinkness when I hadn't felt that way last week. > And besides, if he was going to talk about racisms, he > should have fixed the problem as well. "The racisms", please. No, he wasn't obliged to fix them, nice as that may have been, but I remain unclear on what the story is here. History is made by the openness of the speech, but what is the point? Why does Chewbacca live on Endor?* Obama successfully changed the story... good job... but it's the Audacity of Damage Control, and not, as far as I can see, a lot more. Or perhaps this, right here, is part of the new national conversation on race, in which case it sucks so far, no offense to the participants intended. (Maybe it's supposed to suck at first... I dunno.) 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. Agreed, and I'm especially glad you make a distinction about the "new" Al Gore; the one that did run for president was a pretty dicey proposition, and I'm glad he learned from it. Not glad enough to be happy he didn't become president, of course... - -Rex *I initially followed this with "Look at the monkey. Look at the funny monkey." But then I thought that in this new climate of openness and dialogue about race, such a blatant South Park reference might be misinterpreted. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #551 ********************************