mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 375
|
Post by mchoya on Sept 16, 2009 20:41:06 GMT -5
I think that the test given by the final paragraph in the Sullivan article is far too stringent.
If you'd allow me to indulge, I'd like to conduct a thought experiment. Let's assume that every protester is a rational, self-interested individual (self-interested as far as himself and his family). This assumption may be untrue but I'd like to believe that there is rationality left in today's world.
Let's say hypothetical protestor A protests because he is paying a percentage of his paycheck in taxes and it is funding programs in which he receives no immediate benefit (e.g. reduced school lunches, welfare, federal tuition loans, Social Security). I purposely exclude programs such as the Interstate Highway System because of the obvious free rider problem (I can go on the interstate whether I'm in the lowest or highest tax bracket or I don't pay any taxes to the federal government).
Hypothetical protester A believes that he gets no return on his tax investment and decides to protest. Does this action make him a racist? I would argue that it doesn't. If federal programs are a zero sum game, then he has every right to be upset if he doesn't receive any benefits. I don't think that makes him a racist.
---
I certainly hope I'm not a racist/agist/sexist for being annoyed that I won't ever see a dime of the Social Security money that I'll be paying once I enter the work force after graduation, that a bloated military-industrial complex creates unnecessary spending, and that Abbott districts continue to fail students in urban NJ and I'll be paying the bill for their failure (yes, I know the last one is a state issue but it illustrates the black/white tension clearly).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 16, 2009 20:56:15 GMT -5
I am not sure that the analogy of citizen A is truly relevant to that presented in the Sullivan blog. Sullivan takes issue with the a la carte supporters of federal programs (i.e. for Social Security and against, say, Head Start or those programs that disproportionately benefit African-Americans), not the opt-outs who are against these programs entirely for personal economic reasons.*
It may well be asked who Citizen A is in the protest crowd.** I don't sense that strand of thinking to be too prominent. Small government, maybe. Anti-Democratic Party, sure thing. Anti-government in any form, maybe. Adam Smith, Pareto-optimality, and the like, not so much.
* The rationality argument may not end there, as it may well be argued that pursuing a course of ending or helping to end these programs is not well-reasoned or even in the interests of those opting-out of the programs.
** On second thought, I forgot about the professional, paid protestors, such as those sponsored by Dick Armey's outfit.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 16, 2009 22:32:00 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 17, 2009 8:29:30 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 9:00:01 GMT -5
The Tea Party's probable response would be ... "We spend HOW much money on a Metro system and it KILLS people?" Metro consistently begs for federal funds and has significant federal involvement - and claims to serve a vital federal mission. The fact that Metro - with more federal government oversight than the NYC subway system - is supremely hosed up does not bode well for a federal takeover of the health system, no? Tea Party protestors aren't opposed to being taxed in principle. Their issue lies in the fact that the results of what they get for those taxes are poor compared to the private sector.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2009 9:19:52 GMT -5
Metro consistently begs for federal funds and has significant federal involvement - and claims to serve a vital federal mission. The fact that Metro - with more federal government oversight than the NYC subway system - is supremely hosed up does not bode well for a federal takeover of the health system, no? Tea Party protestors aren't opposed to being taxed in principle. Their issue lies in the fact that the results of what they get for those taxes are poor compared to the private sector. I watched a few of their speeches and that was not was said in any shape, or form. The Tea Party people hate a liberal party governing and are driven to oppose whatever Fox News tells them to oppose.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 17, 2009 9:21:33 GMT -5
Back to the debacle that was our 39th President: Mr. Carter, was Kanye West's outburst racially motivated or simple stupidity?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 9:24:19 GMT -5
I will not debate Jersey/Ambassador's personal experiences in working for campaigns. Those are your experiences & they differ from mine, but that's just the way it is. I take Hoyatalkers at their word. But I will ask this:
Forget for a moment those who would say "I can't vote for Obama because he is black." I won't try to defend them because they are indefensible. Let's take a moment and discuss the 3-5 who said "I just can't vote for him," but could not articulate their opinion in more detail.
I have no doubt that some of these people are guilty of the "passive" racism which you describe. (More on passive racism later). But I can also think of plenty of reasons why these people felt this way and would not make them inherent racists, even in a passive sense. First of all, some people are simply not very good at artiuculating their opinions. Many more people don't really like to be bothered on the phone about their political opinions and this is their way to blow you off. And finally, I think it's entirely possible to be disturbed by Barack Obama's history and not be a racist. I'm not talking about birther nonsense. I'm talking about some pretty distasteful associations, such as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. But maybe these people are afraid that they would get the automatic "racist" label were they to express such opinions. Eric Holder was right when he said we are cowards when it comes to talking about race. We are. That was the very definition of a Kinsleyan gaffe. So, maybe I'm at home and I'm thinking, "Wow, this guy has had some pretty radical associations. I'm not sure if that's someone I want to be President." But if I say out loud, "I'm not comfortable with a President who spent twenty years in that church listening to that man," someone is going to absolutely call me a racist. There is no doubt about it. And I don't think that is - inherently - a racist position.
Now, granted, you said that you couldn't be sure any of these people were racists and you suspect that many of them are not. But you were suspicious of them, and my point is, they really didn't give you any reason to be, except that your thoughts were influenced by those indefensible ones who said, "I can't vote for him because he is black."
Now, on to the larger point:
You will probably be surprised to hear that I agree with you on this point....to an extent.
Let's be honest about one thing here. There is not a one of us, white, black or any other race, who has not been guilty of some of what you call "passive" racism at times in our lives. I would submit that anyone who has never had a racist thought is either lying through their teeth or has been living in a secluded monastery in the Himalayas their whole life with no human contact.
So, on that point, maybe people saw a sign and said "that's funny," sure. The same way the entire audience laughed when Bill Maher made a joke recently about "cracker nation," or the way Van Jones received huge applause when he basically said that white people were deliberately poisoning minorities. (Hell, you get me and a few friends of different races behind the controllers of an XBox playing Madden, and I can guarantee you that there are going to be some politically incorrect things said during the games.)
The fact that we are guilty of these things from time to time is where I agree with you. Where I disagree is in what I think is your implied point. I reject the extrapolation of these "moments" to an overall mindset of racism that prevents any of these people from thinking rationally and without being colored by race most of the time.
There is no purity of thought in man. (It's one thing I know that the Catholic Church is pretty much spot on about). We fall prey to these things. But to say that because we do, we should be labeled racists, or that we are incapable of accepting the idea of a black President is ludicrous in my opinion.
Moreover, let's extend beyond the limited word "racism," to a broader sense of "bigotry." How many people instantly form an opinion of someone because they are from the South, or because they did not go to an elite university, or because they are overweight, or short, or tall, or because they inexplicably like Bon Jovi (and those last people can all burn in hell, for all I care.....see what I did just there?)
We all do it. We are all bigoted from time to time. The fact that we have these thoughts is not what defines us, IMO. If these thoughts become our prevailing mindset and influence all or at least a significant portion of our words and actions, that is a problem. So, the person who made the sign depicting Obama as an African medicine man, yes, I would probably tend to think of that person as a racist. The person who saw that sign and laughed for a moment, or who appreciated a bit of satire, even in bad taste, no, I do not automatically label that person a racist, at least no more than the entire population.
Let me ask another question. George Bush was roundly booed and hissed, in large part by the Congressional black caucus (though by others as well), when he spoke of Social Security reform in 2005. Why did that not spark a national debate on racism? Do you honestly believe that every single one of those people booing was strictly thinking of policy? Is it not conceivable that more than a few were thinking, "this white boy just wants to do this to hurt minorities"?
Or take everyone's favorite punching bag these days, Kanye West. Lots of people condemned him for his infamous remark after Hurricane Katrina. But lots of people -- of many races -- applauded him too, or at least secretly nodded their heads "in the privacy of their own homes," as you put it. It is no doubt a racist statement to say that George Bush does not care about black people. But is it also racist to nod understanding with that, even for a moment?
My ultimate rambling point is this. If we look for racist thoughts an dig under every psychological rock, you are going to find something. And I don't care who you delve into. I guarantee you that Barack Obama has had moments of racism in his life. He has admitted it in his youth, but I'll bet you he's had some thoughts of that nature as recently as the Gates incident, if not more recently than that.
My contention is that it is unfair to call someone a "racist" for these things (yes, Glenn Beck was wrong to call the President a racist), unless we are willing to condemn this entire nation, every person of every race in it. Maybe I am just trying to be Jesus and say "He who is without sin..." More likely, I think my point is that we could have a national conversation on race every day of the year. The fact that this is our country's first non-Caucasian President is not lost on me, so to an extent the elevation of this conversation in the beginning of his term is understandable. I don't dispute that. But there are too many blanket statements going around these days with a harmful label being applied to people who, in my opinion, are well intended in their opposition and are only guilty of "racism" in the same sense that every person in this country, or in the world, is guilty of it.
(Finally, just as an aside, I'll admit that I can't understand your point about the New Jersey politician. I'm not sure how having a family member supporting you and using conservative media to do that means that you cannot be a moderate. I don't get that.)
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 9:24:36 GMT -5
Metro consistently begs for federal funds and has significant federal involvement - and claims to serve a vital federal mission. The fact that Metro - with more federal government oversight than the NYC subway system - is supremely hosed up does not bode well for a federal takeover of the health system, no? Tea Party protestors aren't opposed to being taxed in principle. Their issue lies in the fact that the results of what they get for those taxes are poor compared to the private sector. I watched a few of their speeches and that was not was said in any shape, or form. The Tea Party people hate a liberal party governing and are driven to oppose whatever Fox News tells them to oppose. So, when the Democratic Party gets hammered in the November elections, will the Democratic talking points for the defeat blame racism, the fact that all of the people in the US save those in a few metro areas are idiots, or both?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 17, 2009 9:27:30 GMT -5
It's funny that you mention Kanye West. This morning Stern made mention of that. Howard is a very left wing type these days, but he made a good point. If a white country singer in a cowboy hat got up and ripped the mike from Beyonce and said that Taylor Swift really should have won, the guy would have been tarred and feathered as an abominable racist by now. But excessive benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial prejudice has been granted Kanye West as it always is to black people who have acted terribly towards a white person. I’m fine with that, as long as it flows both ways. But we know it does not. While West’s actions are roundly considered boorish, nobody has the guts to accuse him of prejudice when that is all we would be talking about if you flipped the tables. We will NEVER have racial harmony in this country until all people get the same benefit of the doubt before we play the race card.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 17, 2009 9:31:52 GMT -5
It's funny that you mention Kanye West. This morning Stern made mention of that. Howard is a very left wing type these days, but he made a good point. If a white country singer in a cowboy hat got up and ripped the mike from Beyonce and said that Taylor Swift really should have won, the guy would have been tarred and feathered as an abominable racist by now. But excessive benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial prejudice has been granted Kanye West as it always is to black people who have acted terribly towards a white person. I’m fine with that, as long as it flows both ways. But we know it does not. While West’s actions are roundly considered boorish, nobody has the guts to accuse him of prejudice when that is all we would be talking about if you flipped the tables. We will NEVER have racial harmony in this country until all people get the same benefit of the doubt before we play the race card. In my heart I believe Kanye West was simply drunk, stupid and self-important. I will ascribe no other qualities to him based upon his outburst, but where is the national discussion of his motivation?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 9:50:35 GMT -5
It's a pity Taylor's not old enough to drink.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2009 9:57:08 GMT -5
So, when the Democratic Party gets hammered in the November elections, will the Democratic talking points for the defeat blame racism, the fact that all of the people in the US save those in a few metro areas are idiots, or both? Stop beating on that strawman, it just wanted to sit next to you on the bus. You're really making the argument that tea party nutbags are representative of non-metro areas? Or that those people were Democratic votes in past elections?
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 17, 2009 10:10:15 GMT -5
It's funny that you mention Kanye West. This morning Stern made mention of that. Howard is a very left wing type these days, but he made a good point. If a white country singer in a cowboy hat got up and ripped the mike from Beyonce and said that Taylor Swift really should have won, the guy would have been tarred and feathered as an abominable racist by now. But excessive benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial prejudice has been granted Kanye West as it always is to black people who have acted terribly towards a white person. I’m fine with that, as long as it flows both ways. But we know it does not. While West’s actions are roundly considered boorish, nobody has the guts to accuse him of prejudice when that is all we would be talking about if you flipped the tables. We will NEVER have racial harmony in this country until all people get the same benefit of the doubt before we play the race card. You mean if MTV had staged for a country artist to instead make a scene would people use the race card? Yep because it would have the same effect --> creating buzz about nothing which MTV will turn into more add revenue when they invite Kanye (or this hypothetical "racist" country dude) back next year.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 17, 2009 10:18:45 GMT -5
Do you seriously think that was staged? Easy Oliver Stone.....
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 17, 2009 10:32:12 GMT -5
Do you seriously think that was staged? Easy Oliver Stone..... It was my first thought. The setup looked just like the Brüno/Eminem stunt from the last MTV awards show earlier this summer, i.e., the way no one associated with the production flinched when it started.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2009 10:32:36 GMT -5
Do you seriously think that was staged? Easy Oliver Stone..... Yes, it's not like MTV has a history of staging controversial events that they try to pass of as real (Bruno/Eminem, Janet Jackson Super Bowl). I don't know if it was staged or not but it's not ridiculous to ask the question.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 17, 2009 10:33:22 GMT -5
Metro consistently begs for federal funds and has significant federal involvement - and claims to serve a vital federal mission. The fact that Metro - with more federal government oversight than the NYC subway system - is supremely hosed up does not bode well for a federal takeover of the health system, no? Tea Party protestors aren't opposed to being taxed in principle. Their issue lies in the fact that the results of what they get for those taxes are poor compared to the private sector. I watched a few of their speeches and that was not was said in any shape, or form. The Tea Party people hate a liberal party governing and are driven to oppose whatever Fox News tells them to oppose. I sure hope that the democrat party takes the same position and continues to dismiss all of these people as a bunch of brainless dolts who simply do what Fox News tells them. Keep dismissing this anger and discontent out of hand - that's the formula for the GOP to come back.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 10:43:02 GMT -5
Normally, my first assumption would be that it was staged. That's what MTV does.
(cough-therealworld-cough)
But if it was staged, Taylor Swift should give up music and go to Hollywood because she is a hell of an actress. She looked like she was about to die.
Of course, it could have just been staged with Kanye and no one told Taylor Swift or Beyonce anything. That's about something I'd expect from MTV.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2009 10:48:09 GMT -5
Here's the blog of the guy who scripted the Bruno/Eminem incident and admitted it was staged after Eminem outed it. His entry on Kanye is way, way, way over the top. You be the judge. scottaukerman.tumblr.com/
|
|