From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #552 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 552 Today's Subjects: ----------------- My grandma was pretty racist -- Irish, you know. [The Great Quail ] Re: A man with a lightbulb head ["Stewart Russell" ] Re: "Extremely Successful" [2fs ] A sweet treat for Rex! [The Great Quail ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [2fs ] RE: My grandma was pretty racist -- Irish, you know. ["Bachman, Michael"] Re: Your racist grandma [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:21:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: My grandma was pretty racist -- Irish, you know. Well, we are probably reaching the limit on this particular exchange. I don't mean that in a passive-aggressive way; I just think the horse is about to expire. > Um, me too. That's how I know they are assholes. Some racists are certainly assholes, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. And my the nurse who worked at the high school where I taught, who was black, and hated white people, and only read books written by black people. Others are not necessarily assholes. I don't think my mom, brother, and grandparents are assholes just because they exhibit some garden-variety racism. I think it's very much part of their blue-collar Pennsylvania culture, which makes overcoming those feelings all the more important. Unlike you, I simply cannot condemn the majority of human beings as "assholes." >> 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. Semantically speaking, "legitimate" when used in politics means that something has enough truth value to be taken as a serious topic of conversation. Concerns about affirmative action are totally legitimate. To many people who have actually lost jobs to a lesser-qualified minority, there's generally a sense of frustration and injustice that may be short-sighted when viewed historically, but has real economic repercussions for them. But in your political universe, these people are "assholes" with no "legitimate" points. Not a great place to begin a conversation, I feel. > 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. Of course they'd be "less" scared, but they'd probably still be a bit nervous. Also, make that person approaching the ATM at 2 am a well-dressed black businessman, or a black woman, and many folks would be less scared than upon anticipating a scruffy-looking white guy in a hoodie. There's a semiotics to crime that is definitely racially charged, but that also reflects certain realities of time, place, poverty, and so on. The logical endpoint of discussions such as this would hopefully bring us to a discussion on the links between poverty and crime. > 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. Yeah, I agree. All I have been doing is pointing out that your categorical condemnations are pretty sweeping. > Obviously, it worked, but it diminished him in my eyes Well, it seems to have pleased a large majority of intellectuals, political thinkers, and cultural critics. I suppose we'll just have to count Rex Broome among the unmoved and disaffected! >-- and > unfortunately at a time when I was highly open to embracing his candidacy-- Really? "Highly open?" Really? (Said in a Seth Meyers/Amy Poehler kind of way.) > 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, I was not referring to Obama supporters per se. But there's been a call, for a long time among thinkers within the Democratic party, for the articulation of a vision, rather than a reaction; for the construction of a narrative, rather than laboring under the narrative developed by the Republicans. Obama is definitely an example of this; a case could also be made for Gore as well. I did not mean to suggest that Obama *is* that call, or represents its only possible fulfillment. > 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. I am unaware that I have ever described Hillary Clinton as a "fascist," a "lunatic," or "like Hitler." I just don't understand why you can never keep an argument "clean," why you have to constantly distort the views of your opponent in such needless ways. I do not like Clinton, I think there are many dreadful qualities to her; but I have never said the things you put in my mouth. I do not, in fact, think she's at all like Hitler. I think she is rather more Nixonian. > 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. I find it curious that you would suddenly feel branded as a potential racist by Obama's speech. It's a reaction I've only seen from pissed-off old-school white liberals, the very types who echo Ferraro and Clinton's sentiments, the type that generally thinks themselves above racism. Granted, a lot of these types prefer to discuss race from afar, rather than down in the trenches, but I have no idea of your own history, so I can only assume you are only echoing their sentiments; much in the same way you also echo the right wing with some of your points as well. You seem to be in a somewhat unique position, and it's interesting to see you publicly develop your views on this. And before you get pissed off, let me state for the record, I certainly have racist thoughts, generally when confronted by a heavyset black woman who stands between me and good service at the DMV. Oh, and I don't like Los Angeles, I fucking hate cats, and I think Mexicans are much cooler than white people. I haven't made my mind up about Koreans, yet. Their writing confuses me. > 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). Eh, I think it's good that Clinton has been bloodying Obama's nose a bit. He's sure as hell going to get pounded by right-wing radio, Fox News, and 527 groups in the General, so he might as well be "vetted" sooner than later. Having said that, I think that Clinton's done all the "good" she can do, and should finally step down and accept whatever plum position the party is willing to offer. Their reaches a point where determined sparring becomes detrimental to the Big Fight. > 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. On that I heartily agree. Why the mainstream media has not demanded that McCain explains Hagee and Parsley, or Hillary explains that idiot Coe, is beyond me. Oh, no it's not, wait -- Reverend Wright is *black,* and therefore scaaaaary. White folk get real nervous when the Negroes start hollering! > White racists, and in fact racists of any kind, are not my brothers and > sisters. Non-racists of any ethnicity or persuasion are. Well, there it is then. I cannot say the same. In fact, I think that the best way to have my racists brothers and sisters come to a more progressive understanding is not to disown them, but to lead by example. > 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 that's exactly what Obama said! So, wait -- seriously -- is your grandmother an asshole? Have you denounced and rejected her as a "sister?" > 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. Well, being a Robyn Hitchcock fan certainly brands you as white...! > 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. Yeah, that uppity Negro, the nerve of him! Oh, wait -- sorry. That's the comment I wrote to one of my Republican friends, an avowed racist, who emailed me, "What pisses me off about Obama's speech is it made it seem that all white people are 'typically' racist. That's supposed to be PROGRESS?" Since you are a white California liberal, surely you mean it in a different way...? > it's the Audacity of Damage Control That would be a great band name! But again -- how weird that you think politicians shouldn't engage in damage control. Damn, I wish that Gore, Dean, and Kerry would have had a lot more audacity in that regard! We might not be marking 4000 dead US troops and thousands more dead Iraqis. > 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... Same here. The Rehabilitated Gore seems like a decent guy. > -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. - --Look at the quail! Look at the funny quail! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:29:48 -0400 From: "Stewart Russell" Subject: Re: A man with a lightbulb head Except that isn't a British lightbulb head. Asking someone to draw a lightbulb is one of the shibboleths you can use to uncover wannabe brits. Stewart On 3/25/08, Rob wrote: > 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 > - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:29:48 -0400 From: "Stewart Russell" Subject: Re: A man with a lightbulb head Except that isn't a British lightbulb head. Asking someone to draw a lightbulb is one of the shibboleths you can use to uncover wannabe brits. Stewart On 3/25/08, Rob wrote: > 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 > - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:44:57 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: "Extremely Successful" On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:43 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > >>> 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. Isn't that a Duran Duran song? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:42:16 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: A sweet treat for Rex! From one of my favorite conservatives! http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/pagenum/all/#page_start FIGHTING WORDS Blind Faith The statements of clergymen like Jeremiah Wright aren't controversial and incendiary; they're wicked and stupid. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, March 24, 2008, at 12:09 PM ET It's been more than a month since I began warning Sen. Barack Obama that he would become answerable for his revolting choice of a family priest. But never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it's at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. "If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver. You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.) Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement. This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been and were applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood. That same supposed message of his is also contradicted in a different way by trying to put Geraldine Ferraro on all fours with a thug like Obama's family "pastor." Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984 but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark. No doubt Obama's slick people were looking for a revenge for Samantha Power (who, incidentally, ought never to have been let go for the useful and indeed audacious truths that she uttered in Britain), but their news-cycle solution was to cover their own queasy cowardice in that case by feigning outrage in the Ferraro matter. The consequence, which you can already feel, is an inchoate resentment among many white voters who are damned if they will be called bigots by a man who associates with Jeremiah Wright. So here we go with all that again. And this is the fresh, clean, new post-racial politics? Now, by way of which vent or orifice is this venom creeping back into our national bloodstream? Where is hatred and tribalism and ignorance most commonly incubated, and from which platform is it most commonly yelled? If you answered "the churches" and "the pulpits," you got both answers right. The Ku Klux Klan (originally a Protestant identity movement, as many people prefer to forget) and the Nation of Islam (a black sectarian mutation of Quranic teaching) may be weak these days, but bigotry of all sorts is freely available, and openly inculcated into children, by any otherwise unemployable dirtbag who can perform the easy feat of putting Reverend in front of his name. And this clerical vileness has now reached the point of disfiguring the campaigns of both leading candidates for our presidency. If you think Jeremiah Wright is gruesome, wait until you get a load of the next Chicago "Reverend," one James Meeks, another South Side horror show with a special sideline in the baiting of homosexuals. He, too, has been an Obama supporter, and his church has been an occasional recipient of Obama's patronage. And perhaps he, too, can hope to be called "controversial" for his use of the term house nigger to describe those he doesn't like and for his view that it was "the Hollywood Jews" who brought us Brokeback Mountain. Meanwhile, the Republican nominee adorns himself with two further reverends: one named John Hagee, who thinks that the pope is the Antichrist, and another named Rod Parsley, who has declared that the United States has a mission to obliterate Islam. Is it conceivable that such repellent dolts would be allowed into public life if they were not in tax-free clerical garb? How true it is that religion poisons everything. And what a shame. I assume you all have your copies of The Audacity of Hope in paperback breviary form. If you turn to the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on Page 195, and read as far as Page 208, I think that even if you don't concur with my reading, you may suspect that I am onto something. In these pages, Sen. Obama is telling us that he doesn't really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred." The most excruciatingly embarrassing endorsement of this same viewpoint came last week from Abigail Thernstrom at National Review Online. Overcome by "the speech" that the divine one had given in Philadelphia, she urged us to be understanding. "Obama's description of the parishioners in his church gave white listeners a glimpse of a world of faith (with 'raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor dancing, clapping, screaming, and shouting') that has been the primary means of black survival and uplift." A glimpse, huh? What the hell next? A tribute to the African-American sense of rhythm? To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:51:19 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > Rex 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." > I think either they're excessively cynical - "they're all bastards - what difference does it make" - or just plain ol' pig-ignorant ("liquor stores weren't open this morning - must be votin' for president or something"). The latter group is, presumably, the ones who base their vote on such important concepts as "which one would I rather have a beer with?" (although even there, I can't imagine having a beer with George W. Bush - his smugness, defensiveness, and sanctimoniousness would no doubt show up even in a social context. Weird how people couldn't see that - and imagined him as a brush-cuttin' good ol' boy instead). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:51:38 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: My grandma was pretty racist -- Irish, you know. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of The Great Quail Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:22 PM To: Fegmaniax! Subject: My grandma was pretty racist -- Irish, you know. Well, we are probably reaching the limit on this particular exchange. I don't mean that in a passive-aggressive way; I just think the horse is about to expire. >> Um, me too. That's how I know they are assholes. >Some racists are certainly assholes, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. FOX News was really going after Obama last Friday morning, slamming him for his "typical white person" comment that they were taking out of context and blowing it up to the size of a zeppelin. It got so bad that Chris Wallace called them up and told the Fixed News host that he didn't care for the direction that the show was taking. All this according to Keith Olbermann on Countdown on MSNBC last night. Good for Chris for at lease trying to interject some sort of sanity at Fixed News. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:18:50 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Your racist grandma On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Rex wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:36 AM, The Great Quail > wrote: > > > 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. > Yes...but the point is, what to do about that problem? Merely requiring that such a person wear a t-shirt that says RACIST on it won't help anyone - and, of course, would most likely make things worse. Plus, look: race is not just a matter of skin color or biology any more (in fact, it never was much about those things - and scientifically speaking, it isn't at all). It's about cultures, and perceptions of what's typical among cultures...but the complexity is that different cultures *are* different. On average, of course, and not universally for each member thereof - but we are not all only individuals, Thatcheresque, and if "society" has any meaning, it is that different societies leave their mark on their members, to some degree. That doesn't mean that you're justified in being scared of the black kid in the hoodie...but... Here's a weird example, drawn from one of Rose's girly-fashion magazines: some guy wrote in with a question about whether he could assume a woman at a club dressed like a bimbo on MTV was, in fact, looking to get laid. The reply was something like this: no of course not you sexist pig. Okay, fair enough. But if we ask the question differently - (1) Do some women go out to clubs looking to get laid? and (2) How might those women dress to facilitate that goal? - and we assume the answers are (1) yes and (2) duh, then the answer to the guy's query becomes, obviously, "maybe." But the key is this: just because a woman might indeed be dressing the way she does because she wants to get laid, that does *not* mean she wants to go to bed *with you*. And this is the mistake too many guys make: assuming that Bimbo X wants to get with *just anybody* (i.e., them). What's the analogy? Uh, a bit creaky, actually...but I think I'm saying something like this: some fashions are adopted *because* they convey an impression of street-toughness...and some people genuinely do want not only to convey that impression but will, in fact, act on it in the worst way (i.e., mug you). And in fact, the odds that someone who wants to mug you - black or white - would dress for that act in an expensive three-piece suit is...unlikely. (Okay, there are contexts - like mob hits in movies at least - - but that's not random street crime.) All that is to say that someone fearing the kid in the hoodie hanging around the ATM might be somewhat justified. > > 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. > Is this such a simple binary? Hope and savior of the nation, above all petty politics...vs. "just another politician"? 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? > You're uncomfortable in your whiteness, because you're worried what others might think of you because of it? Just how do you think non-whites have always felt? Anyway: I don't think most people are that judgmental. They're not going to assume you, or anyone else, is a racist just because you're white (they're not going to assume you're not, either - they're probably just going to ignore you, like usual). This reminds me of guys who get bent out of shape when they hear women, particularly feminists, describing patriarchy..."but I'm not like that! That's not fair!" - even though no one said *all* men are like that. It's a system, a structure, even a habit, that's being described - - not every last individual who *might* fit a "profile." >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. We're only going to have a Bill Clintonian disappointment if we're so naive as to believe that one man can turn everything around in four years - even if he intends to do so. Obama is not a radical. He's not even that liberal. But I do believe he's currently the best viable alternative. That's all I expect. Of course, after W., anyone sane and intelligent *will* seem like Jesus, for a while. >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. True...but again, that's not Obama's fault. >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. But you can't undo the cultural fact of your being placed in the pink box merely by wishing it so - and more to the point, our brown and black and yellow and red citizens get placed in their own boxes all the time. That *already happens*, no matter what you do - at least some of the time (as I said above, probably not usually). And it seems to me that bigots, of whatever kind, aren't generally swayed by reason or facts...so it really doesn't matter how wonderful a person you are: if someone is inclined to see you as whitey clapping on the wrong beats and keeping the black man down, it simply doesn't matter what you do. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #552 ********************************